42:0371(30)CA - - Justice, Office of Justice Programs and AFSCME Local 2830 - - 1991 FLRAdec CA - - v42 p371

[ v42 p371 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

42 FLRA No. 30









(Charging Party/Union)



September 26, 1991

Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.

I. Statement of the Case

This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on the Regional Director's "Order Transferring Case to the Authority" pursuant to a stipulation of facts under section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

The General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs with the Authority. In addition, the Respondent filed a motion to strike portions of the General Counsel's brief and the General Counsel filed an opposition to the Respondent's motion.

The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to furnish the Union with information requested under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. For the following reasons, we remand this case to the Regional Director for further processing.

II. Facts

Based on the parties' stipulation of facts and exhibits, we find the following:

The Union is the exclusive representative of an appropriate unit of the Respondent's employees. By letter dated September 6, 1990, the Union requested the Respondent to furnish a list of all unit and nonunit employees in certain of the Agency's offices who received outstanding evaluations and/or awards from January 1, 1988 to September 6, 1990, and a list of all employees who were promoted since January 1, 1990. Stipulation Jt. Exh. 4.

On October 26, 1990, the Respondent provided the Union with a list of employees who received promotions from January 1, 1990 to October 26, 1990. Stipulation Jt. Exh. 6. On January 11, 1991, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that the Respondent violated section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute by refusing to furnish the Union with the requested information concerning outstanding ratings and awards. Stipulation Jt. Exh. 1. On January 31, 1991, the Respondent provided the Union with a list of the employees who received awards in 1988, 1989 and 1990. In that correspondence, the Respondent stated that it denied the request for a list of employees who received outstanding performance ratings "pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(6), which exempts 'personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy[.]'" Stipulation Jt. Exh. 7.

The parties stipulate that:

[T]he only issues between the parties are (1) whether the release of names, or organizational units and disclosure of personal identifiers of . . . employees who received outstanding ratings and awards is necessary and essential for the Union to carry out its functions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7114; and (2) whether a valid interest exists in the disclosure of names and personal identifiers in violation of the Privacy Act.

Stipulation at 3, para. 12. The parties also stipulate that "the Respondent's objections to providing organizational units stems from the fact that some of the . . . units are so small that identification of such . . . units would act as a 'personal identifier.'" Id. at 3-4, para. 13.

III. The Positions of the Parties

A. The Respondent's Brief

The Respondent contends that it "offered to provide the appraisal and award information without names and personal identifiers." Respondent's Brief at 5. The Respondent asserts that "the only reason why the agency was in some instances unwilling to provide the name of the organizational unit [was] that doing so would enable the Union to identify the employee receiving a particular appraisal or award." Id. at 6. According to the Respondent, release of unsanitized information would violate the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 and, consequently, such release is "prohibited by law" under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.

The Respondent further asserts that "[t]he Union has not made any attempt to explain why it needs to know specifically to whom each appraisal or award belongs." Id. at 7 (footnote omitted). Accordingly, the Respondent argues that the "names [and] personal identifiers" of the employees involved are not "necessary" for the Union to perform its representational functions. Id.

B. The General Counsel's Brief

The General Counsel asserts that the requested information is necessary, under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, because the "Union seeks the data to monitor Respondent's fair and equitable application of the performance appraisal system." General Counsel's Brief at 8.

The General Counsel also argues that "since the Union has agreed to receive the requested data in a sanitized form, the Authority need not reach the issue [of] whether release of the names of employees who received outstanding performance ratings [is] violative of the Privacy Act." Id. (footnote omitted). The General Counsel maintains that the Respondent "has refused to provide this data in even the sanitized form offered by the Union which, in effect, omits the recipients' name and identifies the number of outstanding ratings received by employees in each of Respondent's six sub-offices." Id. The General Counsel argues that, "[g]iven the size of Respondent's operations, . . . identifying recipients of outstanding performance ratings by the office . . . will not serve as a 'personal identifier' . . . ." Id.

Finally, the General Counsel asserts that the "Respondent's belated furnishing . . . of a list of employees who received awards . . . was untimely and therefore violative of the Statute." Id. at 9. The General Counsel notes, in this regard, that the Respondent did not provide the requested information for over a 4-month period after the unfair labor practice charge was filed.

C. The Respondent's Motion to Strike

The Respondent moves to strike portions of the General Counsel's Brief which, i