34:0182(40)CA - - Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC and Veterans Affairs, Medical and Regional Office Center, Fargo, ND and AFGE - - 1990 FLRAdec CA - - v34 p182
[ v34 p182 ]
34:0182(40)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
34 FLRA NO. 40
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
AND
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
MEDICAL AND REGIONAL OFFICE CENTER
FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA
(Respondents)
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
(Charging Party)
7-CA-80006
DECISION AND ORDER
January 9, 1990
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
Statement of the Case
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on
exceptions filed by the Respondents to the attached decision of
the Administrative Law Judge. The General Counsel filed an
opposition to the Respondents' exceptions.
The complaint alleged that the Respondents violated section
7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Federal Service Labor -
Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to furnish
the Charging Party (the Union) with copies of VA Form 10-2543
pursuant to section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. VA Form 10-2543
includes the recommendations of the Nurse Professional Standards
Board (NPSB) as to the whether to continue the employment of
newly-hired registered nurses.
The Judge found that the Respondents' refusal to furnish the
Union with the information it requested constituted: (1) a
failure to comply with section 7114(b)(4); and (2) an
unfair labor practice in violation of section 7116(a)(1), (5),
and (8). The Judge recommended that the Respondents be ordered to
take appropriate remedial action.
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor -
Management Relations Statute (the Statute), we have reviewed the
rulings of the Judge and find that no prejudicial error was
committed. We affirm the rulings. Upon consideration of the
Judge's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record, we
conclude, contrary to the Judge, that the Respondents did not
violate the Statute by refusing to furnish the Union with the
information it requested. For the reasons discussed below, we
will dismiss the complaint.
II. Background
The Union is the exclusive representative of a nationwide
bargaining unit which includes employees of the Respondents'
Department of Medicine and Surgery (DM&S) assigned to the
Veterans Administration Medical Center, Fargo, North Dakota. The
unit includes registered nurses, nurse practitioners, clinical
specialists and nursing instructors.
By memorandum dated April 22, 1987, the Union requested,
pursuant to section 7114(b)(4)(B) of the Statute, all NPSB
actions (VA Form 10-2543) of newly-hired registered nurses from
January 1, 1987. The Union indicated that the information was
required in the investigation of a potential grievance and for
the administration of the parties' contract. By memorandum dated
May 13, 1987, the Respondents denied the Union's request for
information on the grounds that release of the requested
information without the employees' consent would violate the
Privacy Act.
The General Counsel subsequently issued a complaint alleging
that the Respondents' refusal to furnish the information
constituted an unfair labor practice.
III. Administrative Law Judge's Decision
The Judge found that the parties had entered into and were
covered by an interim collective bargaining agreement which
extended the terms of any local agreements between the parties
until a new Master Agreement had been approved. Judge's Decision
at 3. The Judge also found, based on Authority precedent, that
the Respondents had a duty to furnish the requested information
to the Union because the Union, under section 7114(b)(4) of the
Statute, "clearly has a right to information necessary
to process a grievance or to evaluate whether a grievance need be
filed(.)" Judge's Decision at 6. While noting that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had issued its
decision in Colorado Nurses Association v. FLRA, 851 F.2d 1486
(D.C. Cir. 1988), the Judge stated that the Authority "has not
yet accepted the Colorado Nurses Association decision and its
prior decisions are binding on me." Id.
The Judge concluded that the Respondents' refusal to provide
the requested information to the Union as required by section
7114(b)(4) constituted an unfair labor practice in violation of
section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8).
IV. The Respondents' Exceptions
Based on the court's decision in Colorado Nurses
Association, the Respondents contend that they have no duty
under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute to provide the
information on VA Form 10-2543 requested by the Union because:
(1) under 38 U.S.C. 4108(a), the Administrator of the Veterans
Administration has exclusive authority over the conditions of
employment of professional medical employees in the DM&S; and (2)
the requested information concerns the conditions of employment
of professional medical employees (nurses) of the DM&S.
The Respondents contend that because they have no duty to
bargain on the conditions of employment of nurses in the unit
represented by the Union, their refusal to provide the Union with
information on VA Form 10-2543 for newly-hired registered nurses
does not violate section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute.
The Respondents assert that as in Colorado Nurses Association,
the "VA's authority over title 38 working conditions is directly
in issue" in this case. Agency's Response of March 17, 1989 to
Authority's Order of March 10, 1989.
V. The General Counsel's Opposition
The General Counsel contends that the court's decision in
Colorado Nurses Association does not preclude the Administrator
of the Veterans Administration from exercising his authority by
agreeing to a collective bargaining agreement. Opposition at 3.
Noting that the Judge had determined that the parties were
covered by an interim collective bargaining agreement which
included a grievance procedure, the General Counsel argues that
"(t)he VA Administrator has chosen to be bound, thus, since 1980
(the date of the parties' agreement) his discretion has not been
unfettered." Opposition at 4. The General Counsel
concludes that the issue in this case concerns the parties'
contractual obligations. Opposition at 4.
The General Counsel notes the Judge's finding that under the
court's decision in Colorado Nurses Association, the
Administrator could choose to enter into an enforceable
collective bargaining agreement. Opposition at 4. The General
Counsel also notes that a grievance was filed under the grievance
procedure contained in the parties' collective bargaining
agreement and that the information requested by the Union in this
case was necessary to the processing of that grievance.
Opposition at 3. The General Counsel contends that the Judge
correctly found that the Respondents were obligated to provide
information necessary to process a grievance under the grievance
procedure of the collective bargaining agreement and that the
Respondent's failure to provide that information violated the
Statute. Id. The General Counsel concludes that the court did not
intend in Colorado Nurses Association to invalidate existing
collective bargaining agreements. Id.
VI. Discussion
The Union requested copies of all Nurse Professional
Standard Board actions pertaining to newly-hired registered
nurses which had been recorded on VA Form 10-2543. The issue
before us is whether the Respondents are obligated under section
7114(b)(4) of the Statute to provide the Union with the
information requested. If the Respondents are not obligated under
the Statute to provide the Union with the requested information,
their failure to do so did not violate the Statute.
Section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute provides that an agency's
duty to "negotiate in good faith" includes the following
obligation:
(4) . . . to furnish to the exclusive representative
involved, or its authorized representative, upon request and, to
the extent not prohibited by law, data--
(B) which is reasonably available and necessary for full and
proper discussion, understanding, and negotiation of subjects
within the scope of collective bargaining(.)
An agency's obligation under section 7114(b)(4) encompasses
the duty to furnish information which is necessary for a union to
determine whether or not to file grievances and to process
grievances effectively. See U.S. Army Reserve Components,
Personnel and Administration Center, St. Louis, Missouri, 26 FLRA
19, 27 (1987).
An agency's obligation under section 7114 to furnish
information which is necessary for unions to evaluate and process
grievances flows from the agency's obligation to bargain
collectively under the Statute. See American Federation of
Government Employees, Local 1345 v. FLRA, 793 F.2d 1360, 1363
(D.C. Cir. 1986) ("(I)n collective bargaining, '(t)he duty to
request and supply information is part and parcel of the
fundamental duty to bargain.'" (citation omitted)). In Colorado
Nurses Association, the court determined that the Veterans
Administration had no duty under the Statute to bargain on the
conditions of employment of employees of the DM& S. The court
stated that "Congress intended to give the (VA) Administrator
unfettered discretion to issue regulations concerning the working
conditions of DM & S employees." Colorado Nurses Association at
1492. The Authority adopted the court's decision in Colorado
Nurses Association that the Veterans Administration has no
obligation to bargain over the conditions of employment of
professional medical employees, including nurses, of the DM& S.
See, for example, Veterans Administration Veterans Administration
Medical Center, Muskogee, Oklahoma, 33 FLRA 417 (1988).
The Respondents do not have an obligation to bargain with
the Union over the conditions of employment of nurses employed in
the DM&S. Absent a duty to bargain under section 7114 of the
Statute, the Respondents had no obligation under section
7114(b)(4) to provide the Union with information pertaining to
the conditions of employment of those nurses for purposes of
processing a grievance. The Respondents' failure to provide the
requested information, therefore, does not violate section
7114(b)(4) of the Statute. Consequently, the Respondents did not
violate section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute by
refusing to provide the Union with that information.
The General Counsel notes that in Colorado Nurses
Association the court stated that 38 U.S.c. 4108(a) did not
preclude the Administrator, in his discretion from negotiating an
agreement with a union representing professional medical
employees of the DM&S or agreeing to comply with existing
agreements covering those employees. The General Counsel argues
that because the Administrator has agreed to comply with
the parties' interim agreement in this case and because that
agreement includes a grievance procedure, the Union is entitled
under the Statute to information necessary to process a grievance
pursuant to that grievance procedure and the Respondents' failure
to provide that information is a violation of the Statute.
We reject this argument. In our view, the decision of the
Administrator, pursuant to his discretion under 38 U.S.C.
4108(a), to comply with the parties' interim agreement does not
render that agreement a "collective bargaining agreement" within
the meaning of the Statute and does not subject the Administrator
to the Statute's mechanisms for enforcing the parties' rights and
obligations under that agreement.
The Statute establishes a framework of rights and
obligations for Federal employees, labor organizations, and
agencies and provides mechanisms for the enforcement of those
rights and obligations. Under section 7114(a) of the Statute, a
labor organization which has been accorded exclusive recognition
is entitled to negotiate "collective bargaining agreements"
covering all employees ina unit of exclusive representation. The
Statute defines a "collective bargaining agreement" as "an
agreement entered into as a result of collective bargaining"
under the Statute. 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(8). "Collective bargaining"
is defined as the performance of the parties' "mutual obligation"
to "bargain . . . with respect to the conditions of employment
affecting (unit) employees(.)" 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(12).
For the reasons discussed above, the Respondent has no
obligation to bargain over conditions of employment of the
individuals employed in the unit. The parties' negotiations,
therefore, do not constitute "collective bargaining" under the
Statute. Consequently, any agreement entered into as a result of
those negotiations does not constitute a "collective bargaining
agreement" within the meaning of the Statute. For the same
reason, a grievance procedure contained in an agreement resulting
from the parties' negotiations does not constitute a negotiated
grievance procedure under section 7121 of the Statute. See U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, Danville,
Illinois and American Federation of Government Employees, Local
1963, 34 FLRA No. 29 (1990).
Because the parties' agreement results from an exercise of
the Administrator's discretion under 38 U.S.C. 4108(a) rather
than from collective bargaining under the Statute, it falls
outside the framework of rights and obligations
established by the Statute and is not covered by the Statute's
mechanisms for the enforcement of those rights and obligations. A
collective bargaining relationship under the Statute does not
exist between the parties in this case. Consequently, the Union
has no right under the Statute to information for the processing
of a grievance under the parties' agreement and recourse to the
Statute's unfair labor practice procedures is not available for
the enforcement of the Union's claim to that information.
Our decision is not intended to preclude the Administrator
from exercising his authority under 38 U.S.C. 4108(a) by agreeing
to comply with existing collective bargaining agreements covering
professional medical employees of the DM&S who are covered by 38
U.S.C. 4108(a). We hold only that a decision of the Administrator
to abide by those agreements does not create an obligation on the
part of the Respondent under section 7114 of the Statute to
provide information to the Union which would be enforceable
through the unfair labor practice provisions of the Statute. See
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical Center, Danville,
Illinois, 34 FLRA No. 29 (1990). (The Authority held that
"even assuming that the VA Administrator could exercise his
authority under 38 U.S.C. 4108 by agreeing to arbitrate disputes
over conditions of employment of professional medical employees
of DM&S, any arbitration award issued pursuant to such an
agreement would not be an award issued under section 7121 of the
Statute (and) would not be subject to review by the Authority
under section 7122 of the Statute.").
VII. Order
The complaint is dismissed.
__________________________________
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.AND
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
MEDICAL AND REGIONAL OFFICE
CENTER, FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA
Respondents
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case No. 7-CA-80006
Barbara L. Perkins, Esquire
For the Respondents
Hazel E. Hanley, Esquire
For the General Counsel, FLRA
Mr. Larney Werth
For the Charging Party
Before: GARVIN LEE OLIVER
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
The unfair labor practice complaint in this case alleges, in
substance, that Respondents violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and
(8) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute
(the Statute), by refusing to furnish the Charging Party,
pursuant to section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, with VA Form
10-2543 for newly hired registered nurses (RNs) from January 1,
1987 to April 22, 1987.
Respondents' answer admitted the jurisdictional allegations;
that they refused to supply the requested information;
that the information is maintained by Respondents; that it is
reasonably available; and that it does not constitute guidance,
advice, counsel or training provided for management officials or
supervisors, relating to collective bargaining. Respondents
denied (1) that the information was necessary for full and proper
discussion, understanding, and negotiation of subjects within the
scope of collective bargaining and (2) that release of the
information is not prohibited by law. Respondents alleged that
disclosure of the information would be an unwarranted violation
of personal privacy of the individuals involved and a violation
of the Privacy Act.
A hearing was held in Fargo, North Dakota. 1 The parties
were represented and afforded full opportunity to be heard,
adduce relevant evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and file post-hearing briefs. The Respondents and General Counsel
filed helpful briefs, and the proposed findings have been adopted
where found supported by the record as a whole. Based on the
entire record, including my observation of the witnesses and
their demeanor, I make the following findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendations.
Findings of Fact
Since July 23, 1981, the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL - CIO (AFGE) has been the exclusive representative
of a national consolidated unit which included all registered
nurses, including nurse practitioners, clinical specialists and
nursing instructors, employed by the Veterans Administration
Medical Center, Fargo, North Dakota. At all times material
herein, the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL -
CIO, Local 3884 (Local 3884), has been an affiliate and agent of AFGE.
At all times material herein, the Veterans Administration,
Washington, D.C. (Agency) and the Veterans Administration Medical
and Regional Office Center, Fargo, North Dakota (Activity)
(collectively referred to as Respondents) have been agencies
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 7103(2)(3). At all times material
herein, Ray A. Johnson has occupied the position of
Personnel Officer at Respondents' facility in Fargo, North
Dakota, and has been a management official or supervisor and an
agent of Respondents.
On July 3, 1974, the Activity signed a collective bargaining
agreement with the North Dakota State Nurses' Association, the
AFGE'S predecessor as exclusive representative of the unit
described above. This agreement was amended on December 30, 1976.
The amendment provided in part:
Vacancies in the positions of head nurse, supervisor,
specialty positions and newly created positions will be filled
from among the best qualified and available nurses. The Center
agrees that such selection will not be based solely on
educational achievement, and will take every means to insure that
the principles of equal opportunity are strictly adhered to.
On April 21, 1980, Respondent Agency and the AFGE entered
into an interim collective bargaining agreement pending the
approval of a Master Agreement. Among other things, it
provided:
The terms of any local agreement which was in effect at the
time of the consolidated unit certification shall remain in
effect until final approval of the Master Agreement for this
unit. 2
Larney Werth is the President and Debra Cederholm is the
Vice President of Local 3884. They have made over forty
information requests of the Activity since 1984. When making such
requests, they use a form agreed to in settlement of a prior
unfair labor practice complaint. The form states whether the
reason for the request is (a) investigation of potential
grievance, (b) grievance processing or other representational
activity, (c) collective bargaining, or (d)
administration of the contract. According to the Settlement
Agreement, the Chief, Personnel Service, is to respond to the
request within 10 days by granting it, denying it with supporting
reasons, or requesting a clarification for the purpose of seeking
to determine what information is being requested.
Among the previous requests made under this procedure and
complied with by the Activity was a request for copies of all
bargaining unit Registered Nurse Annual Proficiency Reports (VA
Form 10-2623) from June 1983 to November 1984 and the related
NPSB actions related thereto (Form 10-2543). The NPSB is the
Nurse Professional Standards Board which (1) evaluates
probationary employees to determine if their employment will be
continued, (2) acts on new appointments to the Division of
Medicine and Surgery, and (3) evaluates currently employed
registered nurses. VA Form 10-2543 sets forth the name, birth
place, school of nursing, license, previous employment, and
number of references of the employee, a recommendation by the
NPSB and signatures of the Board members.
When they receive information from Respondents, Mr. Werth
and Ms. Cederholm put it in a locked metal box in their office,
and they are the only ones who have access to it. There has never
been any complaint that this information was improperly
disseminated by the Union.
On March 17, 1987, Mr. Werth filed a grievance on behalf of
Bruce Boelter, a bargaining unit employee, who had applied for a
lateral transfer from the Intensive Care Unit to the Operating
Room. Mr. Boelter had responded to a posting along with three
other employees, had been interviewed and had been found
qualified. However, the grievance claimed that when two of the
other employees who had applied were offered the position but
declined it, the position was reposted and eventually was filled
by persons outside of the Veterans Administration. Mr. Werth was
also informed at a Union meeting that the Activity was hiring
outside of the Veterans Administration for the Intensive Care
Unit and the Operating Room.
It was Mr. Werth's belief that the practice under the
collective bargaining agreement was to fill Operating Room
positions from among employees who were qualified and were
already employed. This was contrary to the understanding of
Respondents' Mr. Johnson, who believed that the Respondents
could hire under provisions established by the Chief Medical
Director, subject only to the posting requirements in the
agreement.
On April 22, 1987, Mr. Werth wrote to Mr. Johnson requesting
all NPSB actions (VA Form 10-2543) of newly hired RNs from
January 1, 1987 to the present date. The reasons given was
investigation of potential grievance and administration of the
contract. Mr. Werth believed that he could compare the VA forms
with the qualifications of current employees to determine whether
or not the persons hired from the outside possessed superior
qualifications.
On May 13, 1987, Mr. Johnson denied Mr. Werth's request, on
the grounds that it violated the Privacy Act. Mr. Johnson did not
request clarification or propose sanitization of the data. In any
event, Mr. Werth believed that he had to have the names of the
new employees because he had to compare the qualifications of the
persons who were hired for the contested positions with the
qualifications of the applicants who were current employees of
the Veterans Administration. Moreover, he did not know the names
of the persons who were hired from the outside since they had not
yet reported, so he could not ask them what their qualifications
were.
Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
The Respondents contend that the requested form contains
information that could, if released in unsanitized form, be
detrimental to the nurses' privacy interests and that the Union
has failed to justify its need for the data. It also contends
that Title 38 of the United States Code gives the Veterans
Administration the right to determine working conditions, and in
a post-hearing letter, cites the recent case of Colorado Nurses
Association v. FLRA, 851 F.2d 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) for this
principle.
The General Counsel contends that the requested information
relates to the Union's need to evaluate grievances and
unsanitized data was needed for this purpose; that similar data
had been previously produced; that the data was not stigmatizing;
that the Union had always protected such data in the past; that
the Authority has held that the Veterans Administration has a
duty to bargain over working conditions; and that the
grievability of the grievance must be determined by the
arbitrator. In response to Respondents' post-hearing letter,
General Counsel pointed out that the Authority has not
yet accepted as the law of the case the court decision in
Colorado Nurses Association and that, in any event, that case
only related to the Veterans Administration's duty to bargain
over new proposals, not to its duty to abide by existing
contractual obligations.
I find that Respondents had a duty to provide the data to
the Union. First, the Union clearly has a right to information
necessary to process a grievance or to evaluate whether a
grievance need be filed and the Union's statement of reasons was
clearly adequate to show that it needed the forms for such
purposes. See, e.g., American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL - CIO v. FLRA, 811 F.2d 769 (2nd Cir. 1987); U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., 20 FLRA 357
(1985); Veterans Administration Regional Office, Denver,
Colorado, 7 FLRA 629 (1982). It is clear that if the Union's
position that currently employed qualified employees should be
hired for Operating Room positions is correct (a question for the
arbitrator), the data sought by the Union would enable it to
prove that the outside employees hired did not have superior
qualifications and, thus, show that its position was meritorious.
Moreover, the issue of whether the Respondents are exempted from
submitting the working conditions of nurses to grievance
procedures has been decided by the Authority in favor of the
Union. See Veterans Administration Medical Center, Omaha,
Nebraska, 26 FLRA 371 (1987). The Authority has not yet accepted
the Colorado Nurses Association decision and its prior decisions
are binding on me. In any event, the Court stated that the
Veterans Administration could choose to negotiate over particular
matters, and it is not clear that grievances concerning the
interpretation of previously agreed language cannot now be
brought.
With respect to the Privacy Act, the Authority stated in
Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), Fort Carson,
Colorado, 25 FLRA 1060, 1062 (1987):
Exemption (b)(6) of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6), pertinently
provides that information contained in personnel files may be
withheld if disclosure of the information would constitute a
'clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.' As we
recently stated in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office,
St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA No. 101, (1986), petition for
review filed sub nom., No. 86-2579 (8th Cir. Dec. 23,
1986), to determine whether requested information falls within
exemption (b)(6), it is necessary to strike a balance between an
individual's right to privacy and the public interests in having
the information disclosed. In striking this balance in cases
under section 7114(b)(4), we also stated that in view of the
congressional findings in section 7101 that collective bargaining
is in the public interest and safeguards that interest, release
of information which is necessary for a union to perform its
statutory representational functions promotes important public
interests.
In Veterans Administration Central Office, Washington, D.C.
and Veterans Administration Regional Office, Denver, Colorado, 25
FLRA 633 (1987), the Authority held that where unsanitized
information was necessary to the performance of the union's
functions and similar information had been previously disclosed
to the union with no indication of widespread circulation of the
information or protest of the employees involved, the disclosure
was not prohibited by the Privacy Act. In this case, similar data
has been supplied before and has been protected by the Union
without complaint. Further, the Authority has ordered disclosure
after finding that data would not be "stigmatizing" or become
generally known. Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C. and
Internal Revenue Service, Omaha District, Omaha, Nebraska, 25
FLRA 181 (1987). The data requested is a very brief description
of the employee's background and is not stigmatizing. For
example, although it gives the school, experience and references
of the employee, it does not state the grades earned by the
employee, the duties at the former employment, or whether the
references are good or bad. Finally, in Andrews v. Veterans
Administration of United States, 613 F. Supp. 1404 (D.C. Wyo.
1985), where a court held that the disclosure of performance
reports was held to violate the Privacy Act, the data was not
needed or used to process a grievance or for any other valid
union purpose. Consequently, it is easily distinguishable from
this case.
Since Respondents conceded that Mr. Johnson was the agent of
both the Activity and the Agency, both are liable for the
violation of the Statute.
It is concluded that by Respondents' action in refusing to
furnish the Union with the information it requested, it failed to
comply with section 7114(b)(4) and engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8), as
alleged.
Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is
recommended that the Authority issue the following Order:
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, the Veterans
Administration, Washington, D.C. and Veterans Administration
Medical and Regional Office Center, Fargo, North Dakota, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to furnish, upon request of the
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO,
hereinafter called the Union, information which is reasonably
available and necessary for full and proper discussion,
understanding, and negotiation of subjects within the scope of
collective bargaining.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
assured by the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations
Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to
effectuate the purposes and policies of the Federal Service Labor
- Management Relations Statute:
(a) Furnish, upon request of the Union, VA Form 10-2543 for
all RNs hired during the period January 1 to April 22, 1987.
(b) Post at their facilities in Fargo, North Dakota, 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 Director, Veterans Administration Medical and
Regional Office Center, Fargo, North Dakota, 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 insure that such Notices are not
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region VII, Federal
Labor Relations Authority, Denver, Colorado, in writing, within
30 days from the date of this Order, as to what steps have been
taken to comply herewith.
Issued, Washington, D.C., October 24, 1988.
GARVIN LEE OLIVER
Administrative Law Judge
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF
THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR - MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE WE
HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to furnish, upon request of the
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO,
hereinafter called the Union, information which is reasonably
available and necessary for full and proper discussion,
understanding, and negotiation of subjects within the scope of
collective bargaining.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights
assured by the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations
Statute.
WE WILL furnish, upon request of the Union, VA Forms 10-2543
for all RNs hired during the period January 1 to April 22,
1987.
___________________________
(Activity)
Dated: ___________________ 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 of the Federal Labor
Relations Authority, Region VII, whose address is: 535 - 16th
Street, Suite 310, Denver, Colorado, and whose telephone number
is: (303) 844-5224.
FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)
Footnote 1
The Respondents and the General Counsel's
unopposed motions to correct the transcript are granted. The
transcript is corrected as set forth therein.
Footnote 2
The General Counsel's unopposed request to
substitute as General Counsel's Exhibit 2(a), the interim
agreement for the professional unit for the interim agreement
with the non-professional unit, which was inadvertently
submitted, is granted.
FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not
have footnotes.)