WASHINGTON, D.C. 20424-0001
|
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT LOUISIANA STATE OFFICE NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA Respondent
|
DA-CA-90737 DA-CA-90739 |
|
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3475, AFL-CIO Charging Party |
Timothy J. Hartzer, Esquire For the Respondent
Dorothy T. Pleasant, President AFGE, Local 3475 For the Charging Party
Mary A. Silvis-Larson, Esquire For the General Counsel, FLRA
Before: GARVIN LEE OLIVER Administrative Law Judge
These three unfair labor practice cases allege that the
Respondent failed to comply with section 7114(b)(4) of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), 5 U.S.C.
§ 7116(b)(4), and thereby violated sections 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8)
of the Statute by failing to provide the American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 3475, AFL-CIO (Union), information it
requested for representational purposes.
Respondent's answers admitted the jurisdictional allegations as to the Respondent, the Union, and the charges, but denied that the requested information met all of the statutory criteria for disclosure so that Respondent had violated the Statute.
For the reasons explained below, I conclude that a
preponderance of the evidence supports the alleged violations.
A hearing was held in New Orleans, Louisiana. The parties were represented and afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to adduce relevant evidence, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and file post-hearing briefs. The Respondent and the General Counsel filed helpful briefs. Based on the entire record(1), including my observation of the witness and her demeanor, I make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations.
Case No. DA-CA-90596
On or about May 24, 1999, Dorothy Pleasant, President AFGE
Local 3575, submitted a written request for information to Jason
Gamlin, Senior Community Builder, and Frank Z. Elmer, Management
Representative, with a copy to the Arbitrator, in an arbitration
which had been held on April 28, 1999. The Union stated that it
needed the five page, 12 category, list of information to pursue
the grievance, the arbitration, to prepare its post-hearing brief
or file exceptions, and to decide if it should pursue additional
proceedings. This case deals only with items number four and ten of
the request. (G.C. Exh. 2).
Item 4
Item 4 of the Union's request sought "all Federal statutes,
CFR's, rules, regulations, HUD Department-wide policy, OPM policy,
past practices, any notifications of release, and any and all
written justifications" that would authorize an attorney
representing the Agency the right to possess and utilize the
grievant's personnel folder without her consent at the April 28,
1999 arbitration.
The Union stated that the information was needed to, among
other things, determine whether the attorney abused his authority
when he used an employee's personnel file without the employees
consent, and, if so, whether such misconduct should be pursued as
grievances, unfair labor practices, prohibited personnel practices,
or EEO complaints, and to seek money damages under the Privacy
Act.
Respondent's Reply
On June 10, 1999, the Agency response to the request was
submitted by the attorney representing the Agency in the
arbitration and filed with the arbitrator. With respect to all of
the requests for information generally, the response stated in a
footnote that the Agency objected to the:
. . . overly broad scope of [the Union's] requests,
relevancy, and the articulated purpose to gather post-
hearing 'evidence.' Objection also is made because the
request lacks specificity to allow the Agency to make
a reasoned judgment as [to] whether certain data must be
disclosed; the Union fails to articulate justifiable
need and interest in the requested data; and some of the
data requested is not reasonabl[y] available. (G.C. Exh.
5, p. 1-2.)
The Respondent went on to state in response to the specific
request in Item 4 that it maintained an Official Personnel File
(OPF) under various statutory and regulatory provisions, which were
cited, and concluded that the "[d]isclosure of the OPF to an agency
official who needs the information in the performance of his
official duties [is] a routine use authorized under 5 U.S.C. §
552a(b)," citing two court cases. The Respondent did not provide
the statutory, regulatory, or court cases cited in the
response.
On April 20, 2000 and May 16, 2000, after the complaint had
been filed on November 30, 1999, the Respondent provided to the
Union copies of the statutes, regulations, and court cases cited in
its June 10, 1999 letter as well as copies of the HUD regulation
that implements the Privacy Act. The Respondent asked that the
Union "specifically identify additional material that I may be able
to provide." (Resp. Exh. 2, 3).
While acknowledging receipt of this material, Union President
Pleasant testified that she has not received HUD policies or past
practices or notifications of release, as requested, and the Union
still needs that data.
Item 10
Item 10 requested signed and authorized SF-52 and SF-50 forms,
all position descriptions, all justifications, and all classified
documents for all accretion of duty promotions of New Orleans
office employees by name, title, series and grade in the Southwest
Region from 1993 through 1998, including the accretion of duty
promotions of Marvel M. Robertson and Lorraine Butler.
The Union stated it needed the information to gather evidence
that, based on past practices, Lisa Abdul-Khaliq should have been
promoted for performing higher-graded collateral duties for the
past three years; gather evidence that all accretion of duty
promotions are not based on employees qualifications; gather
evidence to show that several accretion of duty promotions were
issued without regard for time-in-grade requirements; gather
evidence that several accretion of duty promotions were
reassignments to positions with higher growth potential without
competition; gather evidence that Khaliq was the victim of
disparate treatment; and perform its statutory obligations to
represent the grievant and enforce the collective bargaining
agreement.
Union President Pleasant testified that although she went ahead
and filed her post-hearing brief in the arbitration and the
arbitrator rendered an opinion in favor of the grievant (Lisa
Abdul-Khaliq) in September 1999, she still needs the requested
information to enforce the arbitration award, to file other
grievances or unfair labor practices on the part of Abdul-Khaliq
based on disparate treatment for her Union activity, and to enforce
fair and equal treatment under the contract for other
employees.
Respondent's Reply
In addition to the general objection noted above, the Agency
responded:
Please refer to the list that the Agency provided in
Agency's
Response to Request No. 2 of your April 22, 1999 request.
By the April 22, 1999 request, the Union had requested only the
"name, title, series and grade in the Southwest Region from 1993
through 1998, including the accretion of duty promotion" and these
data had been supplied by the Respondent on or about April 26, 1999
in the context of the then pending arbitration. (G.C. Exh. 17).
However, unlike the April 22, 1999 request, the May 24, 1999 Union
request sought all of the backup documents for all accretion of
duty promotions of New Orleans office employees listed in the
Agency response to the first request.
On April 20, 2000 after the complaint had been filed on
November 30, 1999, the Respondent provided to the Union documents
concerning the accretion to duties promotions of Marvel Robertson,
Dominick A. Pittari, and Lorraine Butler. (Resp. Exh. 2). On May 8,
2000 the Union responded that it needed the information for several
others on the April 26, 1999 list, including Dorothy Pleasant, Mona
Lisa Dogans, and Virginia Cockerman. (G.C. Exh. 16). On May 16,
2000 the Respondent promised to collect relevant documentation for
others on the April 26, 1999 list who had received accretion of
duty promotions (Resp. Exh. 3). It is undisputed that the
Respondent has not produced the additional documentation.
Case No. DA-CA-90737
On or about July 9, 1999 Pleasant, President AFGE Local 3575,
submitted a written request for information to the Respondent with
a caption relating to a grievance concerning access to the building
and workstations by employees, and failure to provide employees
with keys and working swipe cards. The Union sought the following
information: Documents and forms requesting and authorizing the
issuance of keys; documents and forms indicating the name of the
employees issued unrestricted swipe cards and keys(2); invoices, documents and forms
indicating each change of locks and its cost and the reason for the
expenditure since 1995; and a copy of the policy, practice, rules,
regulations and handbooks authorizing the selection of only certain
employees to have keys to the glass doors and unrestricted swipe
cards to enter and depart the building before 7:00 a.m. and after
7:00 p.m. (G.C. Exh. 6).
The Union stated the following reasons for needing the
information: To pursue its grievance through arbitration and to
decide if management repudiated the collective bargaining
agreement; to gather evidence to decide if this matter should be
pursued by additional unfair labor practice charges and/or
grievances; to perform its statutory obligations of representing
the bargaining unit and enforcing the agreement; to perform its
rights as representatives on the safety and health committee; to
determine if the assignment of keys and swipe cards to only certain
employees constitutes a bypass of the Union to deal directly with
employees. (G.C. Exh. 6).
On September 16, 1999 the Respondent responded to the
information request but failed to provide the information
requested. Respondent stated that employees who were issued keys to
HUD offices were not issued receipts for property forms;
unrestricted swipe cards and keys were issued to management
officials, no unrestricted swipe cards or keys were issued to
bargaining unit employees; and services such as changing locks and
making keys are provided by the General Service Administration
(GSA) and neither HUD office or GSA receives invoices, documents,
or forms. (G.C. Exh. 7).
Contrary to Respondent's memo dated September 16, 1999 which
stated no bargaining unit employees have unrestricted swipe cards,
Pleasant testified that as a bargaining unit employee she has an
unrestricted swipe card. Pleasant also testified that forms do
exist on who has a swipe card, because when she received her swipe
card she had to sign a form. (Tr. 57-58).
On September 29, 1999 the Union responded to Respondent's communication and reiterated its information request regarding the swipe cards and keys. The Union identified the management official who would have initiated, maintained, and approved the information, and alleged that GSA would not have provided changes to locks or keys without documentation. (G.C. Exh. 8). Respondent failed to respond to the Union's September 29, 1999 request or otherwise provide the requested information. (Tr. 55).
Pleasant testified that GSA would be responsible to make the keys based on work requests submitted by the Activity. (Tr. 50, 52). It is noted that on the day of the hearing Respondent provided a copy of a document from GSA regarding the installation of a new swipe card system during June 2000. (Tr. 52-53; G.C. Exh. 18).
Pleasant testified that even if the swipe card system is
installed the Union still needs the information as there is a
pending grievance and employees still need keys to get to their
workstations. Pleasant also testified that, as Union President, she
serves on the safety committee and there are safety concerns
including concerns for disabled employees. (Tr. 57-59).
Case No. DA-CA-90739
This case involves two information requests submitted regarding
changes that occurred in the Community Planning and Development
Division and the Multi-Family Housing Division. On June 9, 1999 the
Union submitted a demand to bargain over the changes the two
divisions made regarding the realignment of work and the assignment
of new workstations without notice or opportunity for the Union to
bargain over the changes. Along with the Union's demand to bargain,
it submitted these two information requests. (Tr. 77, G.C. Exh. 9,
10). Union President Pleasant had previously reviewed the merit
staffing files for positions in these organizations with management
personnel, but had not been provided the documentation. (Tr.
103).
Part 1 - Community Planning and Development Division
The information request regarding the changes in the Community
Planning and Development Division was submitted to Gregory J.
Hamilton, Director, Community Planning and Development and Acting
State Coordinator, Romona P. Augillard, Administrative Officer, and
Jason Gamlin, Senior Community Builder. The Union requested the
following information: A copy of the notice of selection and
release date for three employees (Denise Delay, Ira Carter and
Henrietta Dobard); copy of the position description and employee
performance plan and evaluation system (EPPES) for all employees
being assigned new and/or different duties or workloads; copy of
SF-52's, placing these three employees in a Community Planning and
Development position; list of training to be provided to the
employees (Delay, Carter, Dobard and Brenda Thrift); changes to the
Community Planning and Development division space plans; and notice
of all changes in workloads and workstations. (Tr. 77-78; G.C. Exh.
9).
The Union gave the following reasons for needing the information; enforce the collective bargaining agreement, including Article 5, Section 5.03; exercise the Union's statutory obligation to represent the bargaining unit; gather evidence that the refusal to give notice and an opportunity to bargain is a repudiation of the collective bargaining agreement justifying unfair labor practice charges, grievances, and/or repudiation of office space plans; ensure that bargaining unit employees are not being subjected to disparate treatment in allocation of workload; ensure bargaining unit employees have accurate and current position descriptions and that EPPES reflect employees actual job performance. (Tr. 78; G.C. Exh. 9). In addition, Pleasant testified that the Union needed the documents: To prepare bargaining proposals over the changes; to exercise its statutory obligations of representing the bargaining unit; to bargain over the changes; to gather evidence to determine if the matter should be pursued through grievances or unfair labor practice charges for failing to notify the Union of changes in working conditions; to bargain over appropriate arrangements of the changes and to ensure that bargaining unit employees assigned additional duties were not victims of disparate treatment in the assignment of work. Pleasant also testified that the Union needed the position descriptions and EPPES to ensure employees were actually doing the jobs they had been selected for or whether they continued to perform the duties of their former positions. (Tr. 78-79).
On June 22, 1999 Respondent responded to the information
request. The response merely stated that Pleasant had previously
reviewed merit staffing files and that two positions in the
Community Planning and Development division had been filled on May
23, 1999, and that a position in the Multi-Family Housing Division
had been filled on June 6, 1999. No documents were provided. (G.C.
Exh. 11; Tr. 80).
On September 29, 1999, the Union responded to the Respondent's
June 22, 1999, memo and requested vacancy announcements for four
positions, including three in the Community Planning and
Development Division. The Union stated that the reason they needed
the information was to enforce the collective bargaining agreement,
ensure that bargaining unit employees were being treated in a fair
and equitable manner and they were given the opportunity to compete
for all positions advertised in the Community and Planning
Development division. The Union further stated it wanted to gather
evidence to determine whether the matter should be referred to the
Office of Inspector General for fraud, waste, abuse and
mismanagement of government resources, and to perform its statutory
obligation to decide if the matter should be pursued under
grievances, unfair labor practice charges or discrimination
complaints. (Tr.81-82; G.C. Exh. 12).
The Respondent did not respond to the September 29, 1999 request. (Tr. 82).
Part 2 - Multi-Family Housing Division
On June 9, 1999, along with its demand to bargain over changes
in working conditions in the Multi-Family Housing Division, the
Union submitted an information request. The information request was
in reference to the selection of Anna Barnes in a trainee position.
The request sought a copy of the notice of selection of Barnes and
her release date; copy of position descriptions and EPPES of all
employees being assigned new and/or different duties, including but
not limited to Clara Lewis, Cheryln Wheeler, Virginia Cockerham,
Stephanie Duncan and Anna Barnes; copy of the SF-52 form which
placed Barnes in the project manager position; list of training to
be provided; specific workload adjustments for Barnes while
assigned to labor relations; length of time Barnes would be
assigned to labor relations; and copies of all changes in workload
and workstations. (Tr. 86; G.C. Exh. 10).
The Union stated the following reasons concerning its need for
the information: To enforce HUD/AFGE agreement; exercise its
statutory obligation of representing bargaining unit and its right
to initiate mid-term bargaining; gather evidence that the refusal
to give notice and an opportunity to bargain is a repudiation of
the agreement; ensure bargaining unit employees are not being
subjected to disparate treatment in allocation of workload
assignments and to ensure that employees have accurate and current
position descriptions and that EPPES reflect actual job
performance. The Union stated that the information would be used to
enforce the contract, ensure employees were being treated in a fair
and equitable manner, pursue its demand to bargain over the changes
in working conditions and appropriate arrangements for the
implementation of these changes in working conditions. (Tr. 87;
G.C. Exh. 10).
On June 22, 1999 Respondent responded to the Union's information request. Respondent's response was the same response provided for the Union's information request in reference to changes in the Community Planning and Development Division. The response merely stated that three of the five positions had been filled. No information was provided. (G.C. Exh. 11; Tr. 88).
As noted above, on September 29, 1999, the Union responded seeking vacancy announcements for four staff positions, including one in the Multi-Family Division. Among other things, as noted above, the Union stated that it needed the information to pursue the changes in working conditions in the Union's demand to bargain and to help enforce the collective bargaining agreement. (Tr. 89-90; G.C. Exh. 12). Respondent failed to respond to the September 29, 1999, request for information. (Tr. 91).
On April 14, 2000 in response to the complaint being issued and the pending hearing, Respondent's chief counsel sent a memo to the Union which stated that management was attempting to gather information responsive to the June 9 and September 29, 1999 information requests and such material would be provided on or before April 20, 2000 or within 10 days from that date. As of the date of the hearing, May 23, 2000, the Union had not received the requested information. (Tr. 92-93; G.C. Exh. 14, 15).
The Authority's Analytical Framework
Under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, an agency must furnish
information to a union, upon request and "to the extent not
prohibited by law," if that information is: (1) "normally
maintained by the agency"; (2) "reasonably available"; (3)
"necessary for full and proper discussion, understanding, and
negotiation of subjects within the scope of collective bargaining";
and (4) does not constitute "guidance, advice, counsel or
training."
To demonstrate that information is "necessary" a union "must
establish a particularized need for the information by
articulating, with specificity, why it needs the requested
information, including the uses to which the union will put the
information and the connection between those uses and the union's
representational responsibilities under the Statute." Internal
Revenue Service, Washington, DC and Internal Revenue Service,
Kansas City Service Center, Kansas City, Missouri, 50
FLRA 661, 669 (1995)(IRS, Kansas City). Further, the
union's responsibility for articulating its interests in the
requested information requires more than a conclusory assertion and
must permit an agency to make a reasoned judgment as to whether the
disclosure of the information is required under the Statute.
Id. at 670. The agency is responsible for establishing any
countervailing anti-disclosure interests and, like the union, must
do so in more than a conclusory way. Id.
Case No. DA-CA-90596
Item 4
Item 4 involved, in substance, a Union's request for written
justifications authorizing an Agency attorney to possess and
utilize an employee's personnel folder without the employee's
consent.
Union President Pleasant, while acknowledging receipt from the Respondent of statutes, regulations, and court cases authorizing such access, testified that she has not received "HUD policies or past practices or notifications of release," as requested.
I conclude that HUD regulation implementing the Privacy Act was a complete response to the Union's request for "HUD policies." There is no evidence that the Union responded to the Respondent's May 16 request that it specifically identify any additional material of which it may be aware, such as "past practices, or notifications of release," to further demonstrate that such items exist and should have been furnished. Accordingly, the record demonstrates that, although untimely, the Respondent did finally furnish a full and complete response to the Union's request. The Union failed to furnish a clarification and establish the possible availability of any additional data that might exist.
Although the Respondent has now furnished the information
requested, the obligation to furnish information in a timely manner
attaches at the time of the request and not after the processing of
an unfair labor practice charge. U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, 45 FLRA 1022 (1992)(Justice).
Respondent failed to furnish the information in a timely manner,
and the failure to supply information in response to a union's
request for information in a timely manner violates sections
7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute. U.S. Department of the
Treasury, United States Customs Service, Southwest Region, Houston,
Texas, 43 FLRA 1362 (1992); Justice, 45 FLRA at
1026-27.
Item 10
Item 10 of the May 24, 1999 Union request sought, in substance, all of the backup documents for all accretion of duty promotions in the New Orleans office. After the complaint was filed the Respondent provided some, but not all, of the requested data. Respondent now asserts that the request is moot as it involved the resolved arbitration of one individual and the Union failed to establish a further particularized need.
The record reflects that, during the arbitration, the Union
became aware of other employees who had received accretion of duty
promotions and subsequently requested the information in item 10,
indicating in the initial request that it was also referring to
other individuals besides the grievant and specifically identifying
several additional individuals in subsequent correspondence. The
Union stated, in part, that it needed the information to gather
evidence that all accretion of duty promotions are not based on
employees qualifications; gather evidence to show that several
accretion of duty promotions were issued without regard for
time-in-grade requirements; and gather evidence that several
accretion of duty promotions were reassignments to positions with
higher growth potential without competition.
I conclude that the Union articulated its need with the
requisite particularity and provided sufficient information for the
Respondent to make a reasoned judgment concerning disclosure. "[I]f
the Respondent was unclear about the reason the Union needed the
requested information, then the Respondent should have sought
clarification from the Union." Health Care Financing
Administration, 56 FLRA No. 79 slip op. at 11, n.3 (July 26,
2000)(HCFA).
Respondent violated sections 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) by failing
to furnish all of the requested information and, as to the
information it did furnish, by failing to furnish it in a timely
manner.
Case No. DA-CA-90737
The information requested in this case concerns a variety of
documents dealing with access to the HUD space in New Orleans,
including the issuance of keys and swipe cards. The Respondent
contends that the Union failed to establish a particularized need,
and the underlying objective of the request, access to the Agency
work space, will be made moot by the installation of the card
reader system.
The Union's request mentioned a grievance or possible grievance
relating to access to the building or workstations and failure to
provide employees with keys and working swipe cards. As Counsel for
the General Counsel points out, the future alleviation of possible
employee access problems by the installation of a card reader
system will not necessarily resolve the grievance and does not make
moot Respondent's statutory obligation to provide information
requested under the Statute at the time it was requested and the
responsibility of the Authority to enter an order enforcing that
obligation.
I conclude that the Union articulated its need with the
requisite particularity and provided sufficient information for the
Respondent to make a reasoned judgment concerning disclosure. The
Union referred, among other things, to its need for the information
to pursue the grievance or unfair labor practices and to perform
its responsibilities on the safety and health committee. As set
forth above, the Union supplemented information at the hearing
indicating that the documents exist which requires, at least, a
further response from the Respondent.
Although the language of Respondent's initial response is
unclear, even if it sufficiently indicated that no documents
existed concerning the issuance of keys, that no unrestricted swipe
cards were issued to bargaining unit employees, and that neither it
nor GSA had any documentation concerning changing locks or keys,
the Union disputed this in its reply of September 29, 1999. The
Union named the specific management officials who would have the
desired information and alleged that GSA would not change locks or
make keys without documentation. It was then incumbent upon the
Respondent to conduct a further search or respond in some manner to
the Union's additional information request. As the Authority stated
in IRS, Kansas City, 50 FLRA at 670, "[w]e conclude that
applying a standard which requires parties to articulate and
exchange their respective interests in disclosing information
serves several important purposes. It 'facilitates and encourages
the amicable settlements of disputes . . .' and, thereby,
effectuates the purposes and policies of the Statute. 5 U.S.C. §
7101(a)(1)(C). It also facilitates the exchange of information,
with the result that both parties' abilities to effectively and
timely discharge their collective bargaining responsibilities under
the Statute are enhanced. In addition, it permits the parties to
consider and, as appropriate, accommodate their respective
interests and attempt to reach agreement on the extent to which
requested information is disclosed."
It is concluded that the Respondent violated sections
7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) by not supplying the requested information
or clarifying that the information did not exist.
Case No. DA-CA-90739
The Respondent contends that the June 9 and September 29, 1999
requests for information concerning changes in two divisions also
failed to establish a particularized need for the information.
I conclude that the Union articulated its need with the
requisite particularity and provided sufficient information for the
Respondent to make a reasoned judgment concerning disclosure. As
noted above, "[I]f the Respondent was unclear about the reason the
Union needed the requested information, then the Respondent should
have sought clarification from the Union." HCFA,
supra.
The Respondent's June 22, 1999 response was basically
nonresponsive to the Union's request for specific documents. Its
claim that the Union president had previously reviewed some of the
requested documents did not satisfy its obligation to furnish the
information. Department of Justice, United States Immigration
and Naturalization Service, United States Border Patrol, El Paso,
Texas, 43 FLRA 697, 708 (1991) rev'd and enforcement
denied on other grounds sub nom. DOJ, INS v. FLRA,
991 F.2d 285 (5th Cir. 1993).(3) The Respondent failed to establish any
countervailing anti-disclosure interests, and failed to respond at
all to the September 29, 1999 request.
The record establishes that, together with the above-resolved
contentions of the Respondent, the statutory requirements for
disclosure of the information in these three cases have been met.
The Respondent's refusal to respond or to provide the requested
information in a timely manner was inconsistent with its
obligations under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute and therefore
violated sections 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute, as
alleged.
Counsel for the General Counsel requests that a notice to all
employees be signed by Louis Ybarra, Acting Secretary
Representative, Fort Worth, Texas, rather than Jason Gamlin, Senior
Community Builder, the person in the New Orleans office normally
responsible for providing the Union with information. Union
President Pleasant testified that Mr. Gamlin was responsible for
the failure to supply the information in these cases, failed to
comply with a settlement agreement in January 1999 to provide
information which was first requested in 1998, and has failed to
comply with other settlement agreements.
As part of its remedial orders, the Authority typically directs
the posting of a notice signed by the highest official of the
activity responsible for the violation. E.g., U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, 48 FLRA 1400, 1402
(1994). The Authority has stated that by requiring the highest
official to sign the notice, a respondent "signif[ies] that the
Respondent acknowledges its obligations under the Statute and
intends to comply with those obligations." Department of the
Air Force, Air Force Logistics Command, Sacramento Air Logistics
Center, McClellan Air Force Base, California, 35 FLRA 217, 220
(1990). Accordingly, consistent with Authority precedent, the
recommended order will require the highest official of the
activity, the Senior Community Builder, to sign the notice.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Standiford Air Traffic Control Tower, Louisville,
Kentucky, 53 FLRA 312, 322 (1997). Of course, voluntary
compliance with a final order of the Authority is expected, and any
failure to comply with a final order of the Authority would be
appropriately raised at the compliance stage of the proceedings to
the Regional Director pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2423.40(e).
Based on the above findings and conclusions, it is recommended
that the Authority issue the following Order:
Pursuant to section 2423.41(c) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, it is hereby ordered that the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Louisiana State Office, New Orleans, Louisiana, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing to furnish information requested by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3475, AFL-CIO, under the Statute in a timely manner.
(b) Failing to respond to information requests submitted
by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3475,
AFL-CIO, under the Statute in a timely manner.
(c) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
rights assured by the Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate
the purposes and policies of the Statute:
(a) Furnish the American Federation of Government
Employees, Local 3475, AFL-CIO, the remaining data it requested
concerning Item 10 of its request on May 24, 1999 and the remaining
information concerning its requests dated June 9, July 9, and
September 29, 1999.
(b) Post at its facilities in New Orleans, Louisiana, where
bargaining unit employees represented by the American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 3475, AFL-CIO are located, copies of
the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor
Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be
signed by the Senior Community Builder, and shall be posted and
maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all bulletin boards and other places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken to ensure that such Notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(c) Pursuant to section 2423.41(e) of the Authority's Rules
and Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Dallas Regional
Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority, in writing, within 30
days from the date of this Order, as to what steps have been taken
to comply herewith.
Issued, Washington, DC, September 8, 2000.
______________________________
GARVIN LEE OLIVER
Administrative Law Judge
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
The Federal Labor Relations Authority has found that the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Louisiana State
Office, New Orleans, Louisiana, violated the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute, and has ordered us to post and
abide by this Notice.
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT fail to provide the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3475, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of a unit of our employees, in a timely manner, information requested for representational purposes in accordance with section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.
WE WILL NOT fail to respond, in a timely manner, to information
requests submitted by the American Federation Government Employees,
Local 3475, AFL-CIO, for representational purposes in accordance
with section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights
assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute.
WE WILL furnish the American Federation of Government Employees,
Local 3475, AFL-CIO, the remaining data it requested concerning
Item 10 of its request on May 24, 1999 and the remaining
information concerning its requests dated June 9, July 9, and
September 29, 1999.
WE WILL respond to information requests, in a timely manner,
submitted by the American Federation Government Employees, Local
3475, AFL-CIO, and we will provide information requested for
representational purposes in accordance with section 7114(b)(4) of
the Statute.
(Respondent/Activity)
Date: ________________ By: ______________________
(Signature) (Title)
This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting and must not be altered, defaced or covered by any
other material.
If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or
compliance with any of its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Regional Director, Dallas Regional Office,
Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is: 525 Griffin
Street, Suite 926, Dallas, TX 75202 and whose telephone number is:
(214)767-4996.
1. The title of the transcript is corrected to change the Case No."DA-CA-90569" to "DA-CA-90596."
2. In September 1998 the Union requested information concerning the issuance of swipe cards. This request resulted in an unfair labor practice charge which was subsequently dismissed. (Resp. Exh. 4-6). The instant request for information is different as it concerns, in part, "unrestricted" swipe cards.
3. The Authority held in Veterans Administration Regional Office, Denver, Colorado, 10 FLRA 453, 456-57 (1982) that the requirement under section 7114(b)(4)(B) that an agency "furnish" information means to "give" a single copy of the data without charge. However, the Authority also noted recently in IRS, Kansas City, 50 FLRA at 671, that it expected the parties to consider "alternative forms or means of disclosure that may satisfy both a union's information needs and an agency's interests in information."