In Health Care Financing Administration and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1923, AFL-CIO, 56 FLRA No. 79 (2000), the Authority addressed exceptions to an administrative law judge's recommended decision finding that the Respondent violated the Statute by failing to furnish the union with sanitized documents concerning the selection process used to fill job vacancies for bargaining unit positions. The Authority first determined that disclosure of the information would not violate the Privacy Act. The Authority stated that because information identifying the employees would be redacted, there would be no unwarranted invasion of privacy and, as such, the information would be required to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act. Next, the Authority found that the Union had articulated a particularized need for the information and that the Union's request for the documents otherwise satisfied the requirements for disclosure under the Statute. To remedy the unlawful conduct, the Authority directed the Respondent to furnish the requested documents. Further, the Respondent was ordered to refrain from alleging as a defense, in any subsequent grievance and/or arbitration filed in connection with the job vacancies, that the grievance was untimely, as long as the grievance was timely filed from the date the Union received the requested information.
Disciplinary Record On Supervisor
Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois v. FLRA, No. 96-1060 (D.C. Cir. January 23, 1997), reviewing 51 FLRA 675 (1995). The D.C. Circuit agreed with the Authority's decision on remand in this case and enforced the Authority's order. The Authority had ruled that section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute required the agency to disclose to the union a disciplinary letter issued to a supervisor who allegedly used physical force against a bargaining unit employee. The court agreed with the Authority that the union had a "particularized need" for the letter, and that the union's need was not outweighed by "countervailing interests" against disclosure. The court also held that the Privacy Act did not prohibit disclosure of the letter.
Department of Justice, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Northern Region, Twin Cities, Minnesota v. FLRA, F.3d, 1998 WL 271092, No. 97-1388 (D.C. Cir. May 29, 1998), seeking review of 51 FLRA 1467 (1996) and 52 FLRA 1323 (1997) . The D.C. Circuit denied an agency’s petition for review of an Authority decision in a section 7114(b)(4) information case. The Authority had ruled that the Agency committed a ULP by failing to provide the Union with certain disciplinary records the Union had requested in connection with a proposed removal. The Court found that the Union was acting as an "exclusive representative" under the Statute, notwithstanding the fact that the Union had chosen to represent an employee at the oral reply stage of the disciplinary process. The Court also agreed with the Authority that the requested information was "necessary" at the oral reply stage of the proposed removal action because the Union needed the documents concerning how the Agency disciplined other employees to assess whether the proposed punishment was appropriate. The Court therefore agreed with the Authority that the Agency committed a ULP by refusing the Union’s request for the disciplinary records.
Information about Contracting Out
An Administrative Law Judge of the FLRA issued a decision in favor of a Union involving a data request for information on contracting out. After the contract was awarded the Union sought and obtained from management the performance work statement and the most efficient organization plan. However, the Agency refused to provide the technical performance plan that contained a detailed breakdown of the estimated costs for all the tasks needed to meet the proposed contract requirements. The ALJ found this to be an unfair labor practice. Air Force Academy, FLRA No. DE-CA-01-0779 (November 20,2002).