[ v44 p1542 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
44 FLRA No. 119
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
SACRAMENTO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER
MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
38 FLRA 965 (1990)
DECISION AND ORDER ON REMAND
MAy 29, 1992
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before the Authority pursuant to a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in National Labor Relations Board v. FLRA, 952 F.2d 523 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (NLRB v. FLRA). 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 a document requested under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. For the following reasons, we conclude that the complaint must be remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge(*) for further proceedings.
As set forth in more detail in the Authority's previous decision in this case, Department of the Air Force, Sacramento Air Logistics Center, McClellan Air Force Base, California, 38 FLRA 965, 966-67 (1990) (McClellan AFB), an Agency regulation requires the Respondent to circulate among various supervisors and management officials files relating to proposed disciplinary actions. Attached to a proposed discipline file is a coordination sheet, which provides space for such officials to make comments on the proposed disciplinary action. In connection with its processing of a grievance on behalf of a unit employee who was disciplined, the Union requested under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute a copy of the relevant discipline coordination sheet. The Respondent denied the Union's request on the grounds that the coordination sheet was an internal management document that was not necessary for the Union to process the grievance.
In McClellan AFB, the Authority concluded, in agreement with the Administrative Law Judge, that the Respondent's refusal to furnish the coordination sheet violated section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute. As relevant here, the Authority concluded that the requested document was necessary, within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4)(B) of the Statute, and did not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training under section 7114(B)(4)(C). The Authority directed the Respondent, among other things, to furnish the document to the Union.
In NLRB v. FLRA, the court agreed with the Authority's holding that the requested document did not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training relating to collective bargaining, within the meaning of section 7114(B)(4)(C) of the Statute. However, the court concluded that "an agency need not disclose information on 'guidance,' 'advice,' 'counsel' or 'training' for management officials under § 7114(b)(4)(B) unless the union has a 'particularized need' for such information." Id. at 534. As the Authority had "failed to apply this standard[,]" the court remanded the case to the Authority for further proceedings. Id.
III. Analysis and Conclusion
The record before us is not sufficient to make the determinations required by the court's remand. Accordingly, we will remand the case to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further processing.
The complaint is remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
*/ The Judge who conducted the hearing in this case is no longer with the Authority.