Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04051/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04051-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Federation of Government Employees
Intervenor
The Federal Labor Relations Authority
Petitioner
United States Department of Justice
Respondent

Document Text:

1

Because the Federal Labor Relations Authority has both adjudicative and

enforcement duties, the court will refer to the adjudicative side of the Federal Labor

Relations Authority as the Authority, and the party seeking enforcement as the FLRA.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-4051

___________

The Federal Labor Relations Authority, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * On Application for Enforcement

* of an Order of the Federal Labor

United States Department of Justice, * Relations Authority.

Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal *

Correctional Institution, Forrest City, *

Arkansas, *

*

Respondent. * 

___________

 Submitted: November 17, 2004

 Filed: January 21, 2005

___________

Before RILEY, JOHN R. GIBSON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

The Federal Labor Relations Authority (Authority or FLRA1

) has petitioned

this court for enforcement of the Authority’s order against the United States

Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Institution,

Appellate Case: 03-4051 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857839 
-2-

Forrest City, Arkansas (Bureau), to produce a limited use Special Investigative

Supervisor Manual (SIS Manual) and turn it over to the American Federation of

Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 922 (AFGE), to remedy unfair labor

practices committed by the Bureau. Concluding the Authority’s order is arbitrarily

overbroad, constituting an abuse of discretion, we set aside the part of the Authority’s

order requiring the Bureau to furnish the entire SIS Manual and remand to the

Authority to amend and limit its order. Because the remaining portions of the

Authority’s order are uncontested, we enforce the portions of the Authority’s order

not implicating the SIS Manual.

I. BACKGROUND

When the Bureau disciplined an employee represented by AFGE with a oneday suspension, AFGE requested information on the Bureau’s disciplinary

procedures, including the SIS Manual. The SIS Manual “is a policy document that

contains guidance on the conduct of investigations, including investigations into

potential disciplinary actions.” United States Dep’t of Justice, Fed. Bureau of

Prisons, Fed. Corr. Inst., Forrest City, Ark. (Forrest City), 57 F.L.R.A. 808, 809 n.3

(2002). Because the SIS Manual is a limited use document, AFGE did not have

access to it; thus, AFGE was unable to request specific portions of the SIS Manual.

Id. at 827. AFGE explained it needed the SIS Manual, as well as other investigatory

documents, to determine whether the Bureau properly conducted the employee

investigation, and whether AFGE should file a grievance. Id. Claiming AFGE had

not shown a particularized need for the information and the request was “for an

interpretation of policy and procedure and not a request for data,” the Bureau refused

to provide AFGE any portions of the SIS Manual. Id. at 809-10.

AFGE filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Authority, alleging the

Bureau violated sections 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal Service LaborManagement Relations Statute (Statute), 5 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7135. The FLRA issued

an unfair labor practice complaint against the Bureau. An Authority administrative

Appellate Case: 03-4051 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857839 
-3-

law judge (ALJ) conducted an unfair labor practice hearing, during which witnesses

for the Bureau testified only Chapter 9 of the SIS Manual dealt with staff misconduct

and employee investigations. Another Bureau employee testified that releasing the

SIS Manual “could reasonably be expected to compromise the security of Bureau of

Prisons operations and its correctional institutions.” After conducting an in camera

review of the SIS Manual, the ALJ concluded the Bureau “had an obligation to at

least inform [AFGE] of limited use of the SIS Manual and to supply it with the

Chapter or Chapters dealing with staff misconduct and employee investigations.”

Forrest City, 57 F.L.R.A. at 827 n.4. In his decision, the ALJ found the Bureau had

committed unfair labor practices under the Statute, and ordered the Bureau to furnish

AFGE with “the SIS Manual.” Id. at 832.

The Bureau filed exceptions to the ALJ’s decision and order with the

Authority. Exercising its authority under the Statute, the Authority “unanimously

adopt[ed] the [ALJ]’s findings and conclusions that [the Bureau] violated

§ 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute by failing to provide, as requested, the SIS

manual.” Id. at 808. Based on its security concerns about the full release of the SIS

Manual, the Bureau argued the Authority should, at a minimum, modify the ALJ’s

order and require the Bureau to release only the portions of the SIS Manual relevant

to AFGE’s information request. In response to the Bureau’s argument, the Authority

concluded the ALJ’s “recommended order is sufficiently specific to put [the Bureau]

on notice as to what is required, and any disputes as to particular information covered

by the order in this regard should be resolved in compliance proceedings.” Id. at 817.

The Authority ordered the Bureau to furnish AFGE with “the SIS Manual.” Id.

The Bureau filed a petition for review of the Authority’s order in the D.C.

Circuit Court of Appeals, and the FLRA filed a cross-petition for enforcement. The

Bureau and the FLRA later stipulated to the dismissal of the case without prejudice,

granting the FLRA the right “to institute another enforcement action in the event that

Appellate Case: 03-4051 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857839 
-4-

such action is, in the [FLRA]’s opinion, warranted to effect the purposes and policies

of the [Statute].” The D.C. Circuit dismissed the case.

After the FLRA’s regional office asked the Bureau to comply with the

Authority’s order, the Bureau provided Chapter 9 of the SIS Manual. Upon further

prompting, the Bureau wrote the FLRA a letter informing the FLRA of the

information the Bureau had disclosed to AFGE:

[The Bureau] provided [AFGE] with all sections of the SIS

manual that dealt with investigations of alleged employee misconduct.

Specifically, [the Bureau] has provided [AFGE] with Chapter 9 of the

SIS manual entitled “Employee Misconduct Investigations,” all sections

referenced in Chapter 9, and the SIS manual Table of Contents. The

remaining portions of the SIS manual do not address [AFGE]’s

articulated need. . . . The remaining portions of the SIS manual cannot

be released because to do so could impermissibly interfere with the

internal security of the agency, among other things.

AFGE has received “Chapter 9 of the SIS Manual, a portion of one page from

Chapter 1 of the Manual, portions of four pages from Chapter 8 of the Manual, one

full page and portions of two other pages from Chapter 14 of the Manual, the Manual

Table of Contents, . . . the Program Statement for the Manual[, and] . . . the rest of the

17-chapter SIS Manual . . . in a redacted fashion.” AFGE’s Letter to the Court Dated

April 27, 2004.

Seeking the entire SIS Manual, the FLRA filed an application for enforcement

of the Authority’s order in this circuit. Although the venue has changed, neither party

has changed its tactics in this drawn-out legal battle–the FLRA and AFGE, as

intervenor, still seek the release of the entire SIS Manual. The Bureau opposes the

release of the entire SIS Manual, contending it has released all that is required.

Appellate Case: 03-4051 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857839 
-5-

II. DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction

The FLRA contends we have no jurisdiction to consider the Bureau’s

arguments regarding the scope of the Authority’s order. Therefore, we first ask

whether we have jurisdiction to review the merits of the Authority’s order, or whether

we must blindly enforce the Authority’s order. We conclude we have jurisdiction to

review the merits of the order.

Congress granted circuit courts the power to review orders issued by the

Authority. See 5 U.S.C. § 7123. Section 7123(a) of the Statute authorizes petitions

for review by parties such as the Bureau: “Any person aggrieved by any final order

of the Authority [other than certain orders] may, during the 60-day period beginning

on the date on which the order was issued, institute an action for judicial review of

the Authority’s order in the United States court of appeals in the circuit in which the

person resides or transacts business or in the United States Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia.” 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). The FLRA also has the right to petition

for enforcement of its orders: “The [FLRA] may petition any appropriate United

States court of appeals for the enforcement of any order of the Authority and for

appropriate temporary relief or restraining order.” 5 U.S.C. § 7123(b). It is readily

apparent the 60-day limitation contained in section 7123(a) is not present in section

7123(b).

While sections 7123(a) and (b) discuss who can file petitions for review,

section 7123(c) controls the scope of a circuit court’s jurisdiction: 

Upon the filing of a petition under subsection (a) of this section

for judicial review or under subsection (b) of this section for

enforcement, the Authority shall file in the court the record in the

proceedings. . . . Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall . . .

have jurisdiction of the proceeding and of the question determined

therein and may grant any temporary relief (including a temporary

Appellate Case: 03-4051 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857839 
-6-

restraining order) it considers just and proper, and may make and enter

a decree affirming and enforcing, modifying and enforcing as so

modified, or setting aside in whole or in part the order of the Authority.

5 U.S.C. § 7123(c) (emphasis added).

The FLRA argues that, because the Bureau failed to petition for review of the

Authority’s order in this circuit within sixty days of the order’s issuance, the Bureau

“is precluded from obtaining that review indirectly as a defense to a subsequent

enforcement action instituted to assure [the Bureau]’s compliance with the

Authority’s order.” The FLRA contends the 60-day limitation contained in section

7123(a) is jurisdictional and precludes this court from considering the Bureau’s

arguments or the merits of the Authority’s order. Joining the D.C. Circuit Court of

Appeals, we reject the FLRA’s jurisdictional argument.

Nothing in section 7123(c) limits our jurisdiction or scope of review based on

the identity of the party who filed the petition. And we have no authority to amend

section 7123(c) to add a 60-day limitation to our jurisdiction. As the D.C. Circuit

recognized, “whether a party comes before us under § 7123(a) or (b), we have

jurisdiction to review the ‘question determined’ in the [Authority’s] order and to issue

whatever remedy our review determines appropriate, including the ‘setting aside’ of

the [Authority’s] order.” FLRA v. United States Dep’t of Commerce, 962 F.2d 1055,

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1992). We wholeheartedly agree with the D.C. Circuit’s

interpretation of section 7123.

The FLRA argues to this circuit, as it did to the D.C. Circuit, that allowing

indirect review of the Authority’s order in this enforcement action would defeat

Congress’s intent to limit review of the Bureau’s arguments to sixty days from the

issuance of the Authority’s order. We adopt the D.C. Circuit’s response to this

contention: “This argument ignores the distinction between a court’s role in reading

statutes and Congress’ role in writing them. . . . If the FLRA has concerns about the

Appellate Case: 03-4051 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857839 
-7-

breadth of our jurisdiction under the [Statute], then it should express them to

Congress.” Id. Having jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Authority’s order in

this enforcement action, we now address the scope of the Authority’s order as it

relates to the SIS Manual.

B. Enforcement of the Authority’s Order

1. Standard of Review

Congress granted the Authority broad powers to address and remedy unfair

labor practices under the Statute. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. §§ 7105(g)(3) (authorizing the

Authority to issue “cease and desist” orders and “to take any remedial action it

considers appropriate to carry out the policies of [the Statute]”), 7118(a)(7)(D)

(granting the Authority broad remedial powers). Because of the broad powers

delegated to the Authority to remedy unfair labor practices, we review the Authority’s

order to determine, among other things, whether the order is “arbitrary, capricious,

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c)

(incorporating standard of review from 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). We have the authority

to affirm and enforce the order; modify and enforce the modified order; or set aside,

in whole or in part, the order. Id.

In reviewing the Authority’s order, we realize our review is limited, and we

have no intent to “substitute [our] judgment for that of the [Authority] in determining

how best to undo the effects of unfair labor practices.” See Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB,

467 U.S. 883, 898-99 (1984). We recognize that, “[b]ecause the relation of remedy

to policy is peculiarly a matter for administrative competence, courts must not enter

the allowable area of the [Authority]’s discretion and must guard against the danger

of sliding unconsciously from the narrow confines of law into the more spacious

domain of policy.” Id. at 899 (quoting Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177,

194 (1941)). However, the deference we give to the Authority’s “choice of remedy

does not constitute a blank check for arbitrary action.” See Detroit Edison Co. v.

NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 316 (1979). When reviewing the Authority’s application for

Appellate Case: 03-4051 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857839 
-8-

enforcement of its orders, we do not simply play the role of a passive conduit. See

id. In this case, if the Authority indeed meant to order the Bureau to furnish AFGE

with the entire SIS Manual, then the scope of the Authority’s order is manifestly

overbroad.

2. Scope of the Authority’s Order

It is undisputed the Bureau violated the Statute and committed unfair labor

practices. This case is concerned only with the scope of the Authority’s order

remedying the unfair labor practices. Specifically, we ask whether the Authority’s

order, which apparently requires the Bureau to turn over the entire SIS Manual to

AFGE, was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. In essence, we ask

whether the Authority had the authority to issue such a broad order.

We conclude the Authority abused its discretion in issuing such a broad

remedial order. The Bureau committed an unfair labor practice by not furnishing

AFGE with information about the Bureau’s policies on employee investigations.

Clearly the Bureau was required to furnish AFGE with those portions of the SIS

Manual that could assist AFGE in representing the disciplined employee. However,

the Bureau is not required to furnish AFGE with information bearing no relationship

to AFGE’s representational duties. Forcing the Bureau to produce the entire, limited

use, highly sensitive SIS Manual without explaining why such expansive production

is an appropriate remedy is arbitrary, and the Authority abused its discretion in

issuing such a broad order.

Notwithstanding our conclusion that the Authority arbitrarily issued such a

broad order, and, in doing so, abused its broad discretion, we suspect the Authority

did not really intend to abuse its discretion and force the Bureau to furnish AFGE

with the entire SIS Manual. We glean this intent from language used by both the ALJ

and the Authority in rendering their decisions. Although the ALJ and the Authority

ordered the Bureau to furnish AFGE with “the SIS Manual,” each used language

Appellate Case: 03-4051 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857839 
-9-

indicating their orders were not so broad. After conducting an in camera review of

the SIS Manual, the ALJ specifically noted the Bureau “had an obligation . . . to

supply [AFGE] with the Chapter or Chapters dealing with staff misconduct and

employee investigations.” Thus, the ALJ apparently, and quite correctly, intended to

limit the scope of the Bureau’s disclosure. The Authority also indicated some

limitation on the scope of its order. Addressing the Bureau’s argument that the ALJ’s

order requiring the Bureau to furnish the entire SIS Manual was too broad, the

Authority held the ALJ’s “recommended order is sufficiently specific to put [the

Bureau] on notice as to what is required, and any disputes as to particular information

covered by the order in this regard should be resolved in compliance proceedings.”

If the Bureau were required to furnish AFGE with the entire SIS Manual, we doubt

either the ALJ or the Authority would have used such equivocal language.

Regardless of whether the Authority intended to limit the scope of its remedial

order as it related to the SIS Manual, the order itself clearly requires the Bureau to

furnish AFGE with the entire SIS Manual, even if portions of the SIS Manual are

irrelevant to AFGE’s needs. Because such a broad, unguided order is arbitrary and

an abuse of discretion, we set aside the Authority’s order as it relates to requiring

disclosure of the entire SIS Manual.

We would prefer to use our authority to modify or interpret the Authority’s

order in a way that would end this seemingly senseless litigation. Indeed, the Bureau

contends we can interpret the Authority’s order to do just that. The Bureau argues the

Authority’s order that the Bureau furnish AFGE with the SIS Manual “is most

reasonably interpreted as requiring [the Bureau] to provide [AFGE] with all sections

of the manual that deal with employee investigations. [The Bureau] has done this.

Accordingly, it has fully complied with the Authority’s order and the Court should

deny the [FLRA]’s petition for enforcement.” Unfortunately, we do not have

sufficient evidence before us to determine what portions of the SIS Manual are

relevant to AFGE’s representational duties or whether the Bureau has complied with

the Authority’s order. We also emphasize the Bureau committed the unfair labor

Appellate Case: 03-4051 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857839 
2

Although a casual observer could complain about the follies of the federal

government in spending countless hours and dollars engaged in this protracted

litigation emanating from a one-day suspension of a federal employee, perhaps a

quote from President Harry S. Truman might lessen the blow of this inefficiency:

“Wherever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship.” Robert I.

Fitzhenry, The Harper Book of Quotations 184 (3d ed. 1993). This case reveals our

Nation certainly does not bow to a dictatorship, but, alas, remains a Republic guided

by the Rule of Law, no matter how inefficiently it may operate.

-10-

practices that started this litigation. The Authority has the near-absolute power to

remedy those unfair labor practices by ordering the Bureau to furnish AFGE with the

relevant portions of the SIS Manual. We believe the Authority should have an

opportunity to issue an amended order clarifying what portions of the SIS Manual

must be released.

Therefore, we set aside the Authority’s order, in part, and remand the case to

the Authority to issue an amended order that specifically addresses the portions of the

SIS Manual the Bureau is required to furnish AFGE. We suggest the amended order

specifically list the relevant pages, or portions of pages, of the SIS Manual that

remedy the unfair labor practices and order the Bureau to furnish only those limited,

and precise, portions of the SIS Manual. By using exacting language as to what

portions of the SIS Manual the Bureau must turn over to AFGE, the Authority will,

hopefully, finally end this dispute over a one-day suspension without further appellate

review.

III. CONCLUSION

For the preceding reasons, we grant, in part, the FLRA’s application for

enforcement of the Authority’s order. Because the Authority’s order is too broad as

it relates to the SIS Manual, we set aside the Authority’s order that the Bureau furnish

AFGE with the entire SIS Manual, and remand to the Authority to resolve

conclusively–and in no uncertain terms–the scope of the order concerning the SIS

Manual, identifying the specifically relevant portions to be produced.2

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-4051 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/21/2005 Entry ID: 1857839