---

31 FLRA No. 82

ROLLA RESEARCH CENTER
U.S. BUREAU OF MINES
ROLLA, MISSOURI

                    Respondent

      and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 934

                    Charging Party

Case Nos. 7-CA-60066
          7-CA-60128
        (29 FLRA 107)

SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION 
I. Statement of the Case 
On September 28, 1987, the Authority issued a Decision and Order in this 
case. 29 FLRA 107 (1987). The General Counsel has filed a Motion for 
Reconsideration, asserting that due to administrative oversight, certain 
portions of that decision require clarification. The Respondent filed a reply to 
the motion. 
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that 
can establish extraordinary circumstances to request reconsideration of a 
decision. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted in part and 
dismissed in part. 
II. The Authority's Decision in 29 FLRA 107 
We held that the Respondent failed to furnish information to the Union which 
was necessary for the Union to carry out its representational duties. We 
concluded that the failure to furnish the requested information was contrary to 
the requirements of section 7114(b)(4) of the Federal Service Labor - Management 
Relations Statute (the Statute) and, [PAGE] therefore, violated section 
7116(a)(1) and (8). We stated that the Judge failed to make a specific finding 
on an allegation that the failure to furnish data also violated section 
7116(a)(5) and did not specifically pass on that allegation. As there were no 
exceptions, we noted that we would not modify the Judge's decision. 
We also found that by declining to convene a Joint Committee as provided by 
the parties' negotiated agreement, the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1) 
and (8) of the Statute because the Union was thereby precluded from proceeding 
to arbitration. In addition, we found that the refusal to refer the matter to 
the Joint Committee violated section 7116(a)(1) and (5), because it had the 
effect of repudiating the negotiated grievance procedure. 
III. Positions of the Parties 
The General Counsel points out that the Judge did conclude that the refusal 
to release the information violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the 
Statute. The Respondent contends in its reply that no finding of fact or reasons 
were given to support the section 7116(a)(5) portion of the Judge's conclusion. 

As a second basis for requesting reconsideration, the General Counsel states 
that our decision did not find that the failure to convene a Joint Committee 
also violated section 7116(a)(5). The Respondent in its reply to this second 
point states that the Judge and the Authority found a violation of section 
7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) based on the Respondent's failure to convene the Joint 
Committee. 
IV. Analysis and Conclusions 
On reconsideration, we find that the Judge concluded that the failure to 
release information violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8). 27 FLRA at 157. We 
find further that his conclusion was based upon a recitation and analysis of the 
facts which are sufficient to support his conclusion. 27 FLRA at 149-50. 
Accordingly, we hereby modify our decision to adopt the Judge's conclusion that 
the General Counsel established that the refusal to furnish the requested 
information violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8). 
However, we find that the General Counsel's second assertion in requesting 
consideration is not sustained. Therefore, the motion must be dismissed in part. 
Contrary to the General Counsel's assertion, our decision specifically [ v31 p2 ] 
states that the Respondent "violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) by 
repudiating the negotiated agreement" by the acts of "not convening the Joint 
Committee, thereby precluding the Union from proceeding to arbitration." 29 FLRA 
at 115. Therefore, the motion is dismissed as to this assertion. 
Issued, Washington, D.C., March 25, 1988. 
Jerry L. Calhoun,        Chairman

Jean McKee,                Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

---