FLRA DECISIONS

60 FLRA No. 59

INFORMATION ... PARTICULARIZED NEED BURDENS

Department of the Air Force, Randolph Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1840, AFL-CIO, DA-CA-02-0597, 60 FLRA No. 59.

Holdings

FLRA (Member Pope dissenting) disagreed, in part, with the ALJ and dismissed the ULP complaint charging the agency with a violation of ' 7114(b)(4). It found that the union didn't meet the "particularized need" test when it didn't explain why it broadened its request for performance award data over an earlier, and narrower, request that the agency had complied with. "In these circumstances," said FLRA, "it was incumbent on the Charging Party, in response to the Respondent's request for clarification, to explain the need for the information requested, rather than simply repeating its request for all documentation on all employees in the Services Division for a 2-year period." In her dissent, Member Pope would have placed the burden on management to explain why it needed a clarification.

Summary

In April 2001 the union asked and received performance evaluation and award forms for bargaining unit employees working in the lodging center of the Services Division for appraisal year 2000. One year later, the union asked for the same information, but this time for all bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit employees in all 23 facilities in the Services Division for appraisal years 2000 and 2001. It said it needed this data in order to "properly evaluate fair and equitable treatment for Union members who have received awards in correlation to their evaluations and to determine if Union members are awarded the same as non-Union members." The data was to be coded so that the union could determine whether the employee was in the bargaining unit, and if in the unit, whether the employee was a dues-paying member of the union.

The agency responded to this request by saying that it needed clarification so that management could assess the union's need for the information. The union responded by saying that "the 'clarification' of the need is clear" and resubmitted its original request, with its last three paragraphs highlighted. The parties met but were unable to resolve their differences. When management didn't provide the requested information, the General Counsel issued a complaint.

The ALJ concluded that there was no particularized need for the information relating to non-bargaining unit employees because the union didn't clearly articulate any reason why it needed such information. (Neither the union nor the General Counsel excepted to this finding.) However, she did find that the union established a particularized need for the requested performance evaluations and award forms for bargaining unit employees in all 23 facilities and work centers of the Division. In her view, the union "clearly expressed its concern that Union members were being treated differently from non-Union members and indicated its need for the information in order to represent bargaining unit employees in a possible grievance or unfair labor practice." She went on to find that disclosure of this information wouldn't violate the Privacy Act because it would be sanitized and coded. She accordingly recommended that the Authority require the agency to furnish the requested information regarding bargaining unit employees in a sanitized and coded form.

FLRA, citing several cases involving overbroad requests for information, found that the Judge erred in concluding that the union established a particularized need "at or near the time of its requests[.]"

[T]he Judge's finding is not supported by the record. Nothing in the record ties in any way the Charging Party's receipt of information about bargaining unit employees in one facility for one appraisal year with requests made by the Charging Party a year later for information about bargaining unit and non-bargaining unit employees in 23 facilities for two appraisal years. In these circumstances, it was incumbent on the Charging Party, in response to the Respondent's request for clarification, to explain the need for the information requested, rather than simply repeating its request for all documentation on all employees in the Services Division for a 2-year period. . . . The reply was not sufficiently specific for the Respondent to determine whether a particularized need actually existed. . . . Rather, the request as made was overbroad and did not constitute a particularized need. See Customs, New Orleans, 53 FLRA 789 (union requested information covering a 4-year period and judge found that union only needed information for 1-year period; Dep't of Labor, 51 FLRA at 475-77 (union request for 5 years of disciplinary suspension records to ensure consistency in disciplinary actions of all employees was overly broad).

Because the union didn't establish a particularized need for the information it requested, FLRA concluded it wasn't "necessary" within the meaning of ' 7114(b)(4) and dismissed the complaint.

In her dissent, Member Pope disagreed with the majority's view that the information request was overbroad. She also challenged the adequacy of the agency's clarification request. In her view, if the agency thought the union's request was overbroad, it should have said so in its clarification request. Otherwise the union has "to play a guessing game as to how to clarify an information request. Enforcing a union's right to information under the Statute shouldn't be a game."

Table of Contents