[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 237 (Monday, December 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30494]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 12, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
Standard for Determining Whether Certain Information Is
``Necessary,'' Within the Meaning of Section 7114(b)(4)(B) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute
AGENCY: Federal Labor Relations Authority.
ACTION: Notice of the opportunity to file briefs as amici curiae in
certain unfair labor practice proceedings in which agencies have
refused to provide information requested by labor organizations under
section 7114(b)(4) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute (5 U.S.C. 7114(b)(4)).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Labor Relations Authority provides an opportunity
for all interested persons to file briefs as amici curiae on a
significant issue common to a number of cases pending before the
Authority involving the refusals of agencies to provide labor
organizations with information requested under section 7114(b)(4)(B) of
the Statute.
DATES: Briefs submitted in response to this notice will be considered
if filed by January 6, 1995. The date of filing shall be determined by
the date of mailing as indicated by the postmark date. If no postmark
date is evident on the mailing, it shall be presumed to have been
mailed 5 days prior to receipt. If filing is by personal delivery, it
shall be considered filed on the date it is received by the Authority.
ADDRESSES: All briefs shall be captioned ``Necessary Information,
Amicus Brief,'' and shall contain separate, numbered headings for each
issue discussed. An original and four (4) copies of each amicus brief,
with any enclosures, on 8\1/2\ x 11 inch size paper, shall be addressed
to Alicia Columna, Director, Case Control Office , FLRA, Attn:
Necessary Information Cases, 607 14th Street NW., Room 415, Washington,
DC 20424-0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alicia Columna, Director, Case Control
Office, Federal Labor Relations Authority, (202) 482-6540.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Labor Relations Authority has
pending before it cases where agencies have refused to provide labor
organizations with information requested under section 7114(b)(4) of
the Statute because the agencies allege, inter alia, that the requested
information is not ``necessary for full and proper discussion,
understanding, and negotiation of subjects within the scope of
collective bargaining[.]'' 5 U.S.C. 7114(b)(4)(B). In National Park
Service, National Capital Region, United States Park Police, 48 FLRA
1151 (1993) (National Park Service) (Member Talkin concurring in part
and dissenting in part), the Authority adopted the standard set forth
in National Labor Relations Board v. FLRA, 952 F.2d 523 (D.C. Cir.
1992) (NLRB v. FLRA), for determining when requested information
involving advice, guidance, counsel or training provided for management
officials is ``necessary,'' within the meaning of section
1714(b)(4)(B). The Authority is now considering application of the
National Park Service standard to pending cases, including whether a
different standard should be applied to requests for other types of
information.
In this context, parties in the following pending cases have been
directed to file statements with the Authority addressing certain
questions. The cases, and the types of information at issue therein,
are:
Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security
Administration, Ventura District Office, Case No. 8-CA-20443; where the
union requested supervisors' ``memory joggers.''
United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States
Border Patrol, Case No. 6-CA-10866; where the union requested memoranda
written by employees requesting assignments to certain work units.
Social Security Administration, Dallas Region, Case No. 6-CA-10825;
where the union requested ``memory joggers'' pertaining to a certain
bargaining unit employee who was challenging an appraisal rating.
United States Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service,
Case No. 7-CA-0658; where the union requested a performance appraisal
of an employee who was appraised under a performance plan identical to
that of a unit employee who was dissatisfied with her appraisal rating.
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Allenwood Federal Prison Camp,
Montgomery, Pennsylvania, 12-CA-20160; where the union requested a
crediting plan for a first-line supervisory position for which a
bargaining unit employee was not selected.
Parties in the aforementioned cases were directed to provide briefs
addressing the following questions:
1. Do the requested documents constitute guidance, advice, counsel
or training provided for management officials or do they fall within
some other category? Why do you so characterize them?
2. If the requested documents do not constitute guidance, advice,
counsel or training provided for management officials, should the
standard set forth in National Park Service be applied to such
documents, in light of NLRB v. FLRA; Department of the Air Force, Scott
Air Force Base v. FLRA, 956 F.2d 1223 (D.C. Cir. 1992); U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Allenwood Federal Prison Camp,
Montgomery, Pennsylvania v. FLRA, 988 F.2d 1267 (D.C. Cir. 1993);
Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, D.C. v. FLRA, 1 F.3d 19
(D.C. Cir. 1993); Department of Justice, United States Immigration and
Naturalization Service, United States Border Patrol, El Paso, TX v.
FLRA, 991 F.2d 285 (5th Cir. 1993); and United States Department of
Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Northern Region, Twin
Cities, Minnesota; Office of Inspector General, Washington, D.C.; and
Office of Professional Responsibility, Washington, D.C. v. FLRA, No.
93-1284 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 4, 1994), slip op. at 16-17? If not, why not,
and what standard should be applied?
3. What showing of need for the requested information has the Union
established?
4. What interest has the Agency established for not disclosing the
requested information?
Although these questions were asked of the parties in the above-
referenced cases, the matters addressed in the questions posed are
likely to be of concern to the Federal sector labor-management
relations community in general. With respect to questions 3 and 4, the
matters of broader concern would be the showings of need (question 3)
and interest (question 4) the union and respondent, respectively, would
be required to establish under whatever standard is advanced as
appropriate for application. Therefore, the Authority finds it
appropriate to provide for the filing of briefs as amici curiae
addressing any or all of these matters.
Dated: December 7, 1994.
For the Authority.
Alicia N. Columna,
Director, Case Control Office.
[FR Doc. 94-30494 Filed 12-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6267-01-M