United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Louisiana State Office, New Orleans, Louisiana (Respondent) and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3475 (Charging Party/Union)
[ v57 p107 ]
57 FLRA No. 30
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
LOUISIANA STATE OFFICE
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
(Respondent) [n1]
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3475
(Charging Party/Union)
DA-CA-00452 [n2]
_____
DECISION AND ORDER
May 11, 2001
_____
Before the Authority: Dale Cabaniss, Chairman; Donald S. Wasserman and Carol Waller Pope, Members
I. Statement of the Case
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on exceptions to the attached decision of the Administrative Law Judge filed by the General Counsel. The Respondent filed an opposition to the exceptions.
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated § 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by failing to respond to four information requests submitted by the Union and failing to provide the Union with the information requested.
Upon consideration of the Judge's decision and the entire record, we find, for the reasons stated in 57 FLRA No. 28 (2001), that the complaint should be remanded to the Chief Judge, for further action consistent with that decision.
II. Order
The complaint in case no. DA-CA-00452 is reinstated, and the matter is hereby remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for assignment to a different administrative law judge.
Office of Administrative Law Judges
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Respondent
and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 3475
Charging Party
Case No. DA-CA-00452
Mary Larson, Esquire
Shannon Rivers
For the General Counsel
Mary C. Merchant
For the Respondent
Dorothy Pleasant
For the Charging Party
Before: WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
This case was set for hearing on October 13, 2000, in New Orleans, Louisiana, seriatim following Case No. DA-CA-00106. Counsel for Respondent, President of the Charging Party, witnesses, Court Reporter and the undersigned were present prior to the scheduled time of the hearing. At about 0900, the Regional Attorney, Ms. Charlotte A. Dye, called the undersigned to report that one of the attorneys for General Counsel, Ms. Larson, had become ill and the other attorney for General Counsel, Ms. Rivers, had taken her to a hospital. The undersigned told the Regional Attorney to send Ms. Rivers to try the cases as soon as possible. The Regional Attorney moved for a continuance which was denied. The undersigned emphasized to the Regional Attorney that the hospital staff would take care of Ms. Larson; that Ms. Rivers could do nothing for her; and that it would be an unwarranted imposition on Respondent, Charging Party, the witnesses, the Court Reporter and the undersigned not to utilize the services of the other attorney, Ms. Rivers, who was present in New Orleans for the express purpose of trying these cases. It was agreed that the opening of the hearing would be delayed until noon. At about 11:30 a.m. the Regional Attorney called and steadfastly refused to send Ms. Rivers to the hearing and conceded that I would [ v57 p108 ] have to dismiss this case for want of prosecution. I went on the record, recited the refusal of the Regional Attorney to use an available attorney to try the case, offered Charging Party the right to proceed without the General Counsel, which Ms. Pleasant, President of Local 3475, declined and, because General Counsel refused to prosecute, dismissed the complaint.
______________________
WILLIAM B. DEVANEY
Administrative Law Judge
Issued: October 23, 2000
Washington, DC
Footnote # 1 for 57 FLRA No. 30 - Authority's Decision
This corrects the Judge's inadvertent error in the caption specifying the Agency, rather than the Activity, as the Respondent.
Footnote # 2 for 57 FLRA No. 30 - Authority's Decision
This case was scheduled for hearing with two other cases, DA-CA-00106 and DA-CA-90742. Decisions in those cases are rendered today as well, as 57 FLRA No. 28 and 57 FLRA No. 29.