Source: https://www.flra.gov/node/66901
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 13:42:20+00:00

Document:
This proceeding, under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the United States Code, 5 U.S.C. § 7101, et seq.(1), and the Rules and Regulations issued thereunder, 5 C.F.R. § 2423.1, et seq., concerns whether Respondent's refusal to furnish, ". . . all correspondence between Mr. Ruiz, a supervisor, and the District Director. . . ." concerning Mr. Ruiz' arrest and detention in Matamoros, Mexico, was contrary to § 14(b)(4) and in violation of §§ 16(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.
1. The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Immigration and Naturalization Service Council (hereinafter, "AFGE") is the certified exclusive representative of a nationwide consolidated unit of employees appropriate for collective bargaining at the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service including employees located at Harlingen, Texas (G.C. Exhs. 1(e) and (g); 3, Art. 1).
2. Mr. Juan A. Garcia, a member of the bargaining unit (Tr. 16), is employed by Respondent at its Port Isabel Service Processing Center, Harlingen District, Los Fresnas, Texas, and lives in adjacent government housing (Tr. 16).
3. At the time in question, Mr. Garcia, who works rotating shifts, was assigned to the day shift - 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. On December 23, 1991, when Mr. Garcia was awakened to go to work, his wife told him that her nephew had brought his common-law wife to their home at about 3 a.m. Although his wife told him that her nephew had assured her that his common-law wife, Maria Guadalupe Barajas-Enriquez, had documents, Mr. Garcia did not think she had permission to be in the United States and, accordingly, told his wife to get them back to Matamoros, a town in Mexico on the other side of the Rio Grande river from Brownsville, Texas (Tr. 21, G.C. Exhs. 2, 5). Mr. Garcia went to work without having seen Maria. Mr. Garcia's wife did not comply with his instructions; at about 1:50 p.m. on December 23, 1991, Ms. Mattilde Reyes, Mr. Garcia's sister-in-law, called Respondent and reported that an undocumented alien was being housed in Mr. Garcia's residence, House No. 304. Respondent sent personnel to Mr. Garcia's residence and found an undocumented alien, Maria, on the premises. (G.C. Exh. 2).
wife to transport said alien to Brownsville is contrary to the mission of this Service." (G.C. Exh. 2).
Although Mr. Garcia was charged with the specific offense of "Failing to report the presence of an undocumented alien at your residence. . . .", the offense was bottomed, as Respondent reminded him, on that portion of the Officers' Handbook which provides, "Any association, business, social or otherwise, which may obligate, or appear to obligate, you to an alien in any way should be carefully avoided. Such obligation can become a serious barrier to the proper enforcement of the law and may bring criticism both to you and to the Service." (G.C. Exh. 2). All employees are to follow the guidelines of the Officers' Handbook (Tr. 43).
5. On February 22, 1992, Mr. Garcia designated Mr. Dewell M. Richardson, Special Operations Inspector and President of Local 1944 (Tr. 15), as his representative (G.C. Exh. 4, Attachment) and Mr. Richardson, by letter also dated February 22, 1992 (G.C. Exh. 4), informed the District Director that he would be representing Mr. Garcia; in the same letter he requested, ". . . copies of all documents pertaining to the proposed action in order to prepare a reply"; and advised the District Director that, "We will reply both orally and in writing and also request an appointment for that purpose." (G.C. Exh. 4).
6. Mr. Richardson submitted a statement on February 26, 1992 (G.C. Exh. 5) but did not raise the defense of disparate treatment. By letter dated March 31, 1992, the District Director, Mr. E.M. Trominski, found that disciplinary action invoked was warranted but reduced the suspension from 30 days, as had been proposed, to fourteen days (G.C. Exh. 6). By letter dated April 7, 1992, Mr. Richardson invoked arbitration (G.C. Exh. 7); and, by letter also dated April 7, 1992, Mr. Garcia informed Respondent that his representative in the upcoming arbitration hearing would be: Ms. Mildred Williams (G.C. Exh. 7, Attachment).
"B. Any record of counselling, either verbal or written, that may exist.
actual punishment awarded to him if not included in Request A.
Harlingen District." (G.C. Exh. 8).
Mr. Richardson also stated that, "The union also needs the above information in addition to the reason stated above in order to include it in a more general study of disparity in treatment between journeymen and supervisors(3). . . ." (G.C. Exh. 8).
"(1) 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5). . .
"(2) 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6). . .
"(3) 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C). . .
those documents, you may write to . . . . [Office of the Inspector General, Washington, D.C.] (G.C.
Tuesday morning following his arrest during a weekend drug bust. . .
spending more than a day behind bars in a Matamoros jail. . .
authorities cleared the supervisor of any wrong-doing.
kept for over a day.
10. Mr. Trominski testified that there had been no counselling, either oral or written, of Mr. Ruiz and, accordingly, there was no record as requested in Request B (Tr. 116); and, further, that there had been no proposal for disciplinary action and no corrective action taken and, accordingly, there was no data as requested in Requests C and D (Tr. 116-117, 118). Mr. Trominski further testified that the seven pages he had indicated in his letter of March 5, 1992, as related to Mr. Richardson's request (G.C. Exh. 10), consisted of two documents: first, the three pages of Mr. Ruiz' memorandum to the Regional Director, Mr. Trominski, which he, Trominski, had orally requested (Tr. 136); and, second Mr. Trominski's four page report to the Acting Regional Commissioner, his immediate supervisor (Tr. 136-137). Mr. Trominski stated that his four page report was not, strictly speaking, within the purview of Mr. Richardson's request, (Tr. 117-118), i.e. ". . . correspondence between Mr. Ruiz and the District Director and/or his agents . . ." (G.C. Exh. 8, Request A), and he included it only because he did not want to subject the agency to "splitting hairs" (Tr. 127) and elected to "err on the side of caution" (Tr. 137). Mr. Trominski testified that Mr. Ruiz' statement concerned law enforcement relations between Mexico and the United States (Tr. 141, 142, 143) and that its disclosure could damage law enforcement efforts along the border (Tr. 152, 156, 157, 160-161).
their investigation and no charges were filed.
". . . there is no evidence that any of persons arrested with SUBJECT are known criminals.
was associating with known criminal elements." (Res. Exh. 1).
1. Data not necessary within the meaning of § 14(b)(4)(B).
subjects within the scope of collective bargaining. . . ."(5) (§ 7114(b)(4)(B)).
Discipline of Mr. Garcia had been proposed for his admitted failure to report the presence of an undocumented alien at his home. As a defense, the Union wanted to explore the possibility of disparity of treatment of a supervisor, Mr. Ruiz, following his arrest in Mexico about a year earlier for which Mr. Ruiz received no discipline, and the proposed discipline of Mr. Garcia. The difficulty was that neither the newspaper accounts, nor the Union's other sources of information (Tr. 78), had indicated any misconduct on the part of Mr. Ruiz, although, certainly, his mere arrest and detention for more than 24 hours had raised a question. But, the VALLEY MORNING STAR had reported, ". . . that no charges were brought against Ruiz . . . 'There are no allegations pending against Cecilio Ruiz. The Commandante of the Federal Judicial Police made it very clear they found him not be culpable of any charges' . . . He apparently was arrested with several others in the lounge of the Hotel Del Prado in Matamoros. . . ."; and the SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS NEWS had reported, "A high-ranking U.S. immigration officer was arrested in this border city after Mexican federal police found cocaine on a man with him at a hotel bar. . . 'Basically, it appears that Ruiz was socializing with some friends when the MFJP moved in with an investigation . . . One of his acquaintances was in possession of a small amount of cocaine . . . The police assured us that his name was cleared and that he had absolutely nothing to do with the possession or use of cocaine'" (G.C. Exh. 12).
"JUDGE DEVANEY: And he made no confession of dealing in any illicit activity?
"THE WITNESS: None whatsoever." (Tr. 166).
suspect in their investigation and no charges were filed.
others was planted. . .
". . . there is no evidence that any of the persons arrested with SUBJECT are known criminals.
The Union's request was specifically limited to ". . . correspondence between Mr. Ruiz and the District Director" (G.C. Exh. 8) and, accordingly, the Union did not ask for the District Director's report to his superior. Indeed, General Counsel stated at the hearing that, "And it sounds now like we are down to a three-page memo that Ruiz wrote" (Tr. 159); but, in any event, there was no showing whatever that the District Director's report was "necessary" within the meaning of § 14(b)(4)(B) of the Statute. Because the Union's request was not "necessary" within the meaning of § 14(b)(4)(B) of the Statute, Respondent's refusal to furnish the data was not contrary to § 14(b)(4) and did not violate §§ 16(a)(1), (5) or (8).
2. Release of Mr. Ruiz' Statement Prohibited by Law.
. . . . (5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(2)).
which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(7) investigatory records complied for law enforcement purposes. . . ."
(a) Clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. 749 (1989)] at 773 (internal quotation marks omitted)." (62 U.S.L.W. 4146).
analysis. . . ." (62 U.S.L.W. 4146).
Mr. Ruiz' statement concerning his arrest and detention in Mexico would not contribute to public understanding of the operations or activities of the United States government, which the Court has noted is the core purpose of FOIA, Reporters Committee, supra, 489 U.S. at 775; DoD, supra, 62 U.S.L.W. at 4146, 4147. As the Court held in DoD, supra, "Because a very slight privacy interest would suffice to outweigh the relevant public interest, we need not be exact in our qualification of the privacy interest. It is enough . . . that the employees' interest in nondisclosure is not insubtan- tial." (62 U.S.L.W. at 4147). Here, as in DoD, supra, the FOIA-related public interest in disclosure is virtually nonexistent, and Mr. Ruiz' interest in nondisclosure clearly is not insubstantial. Accordingly, Mr. Ruiz' statement is protected by the Privacy Act and its disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. DoD, supra.
(b) Prohibited by Exemption of the Freedom of Information Act.
1974 amendment adopted in response to concerns expressed by the President [footnote omitted].
to personnel, medical, and similar files." (id., at 756).
Government happens to be storing, the invasion of privacy is 'unwarranted.' . . . ." (id., at 780).
Accordingly, release of Mr. Ruiz' statement would constitute an unwarranted invasion of his personal privacy.
(c) No opinion expressed as to Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act.
Although Respondent also relied on 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) in denying the Union request for data, neither party addresses Exemption 5 and I express no opinion whatever concerning Exemption 5.
The Complaint in Case No. DA-CA-20684 be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.
2. General Counsel's motion to correct the transcript, which was unopposed, is granted and the transcript is hereby corrected by adding the appearance of Mr. Dewell M. Richardson on page 1. Mr. Richardson's appearance on behalf of the Charging Party was duly entered on page 7 of the transcript.
3. See, Mr. Richardson's request, dated December 23, 1991 (G.C. Exh. 9; Tr. 55).
4. Office of Professional Responsibility/Office of the Inspector General (Res. Exh. 1; G.C. Exh. 10; Tr. 133-134).
5. Respondent concedes that the data in question is normally maintained, indeed, counsel for Respondent stipulated that, "I will at least maintain a copy of these documents during the pendency of this hearing so they will not be destroyed . . . I will say as an officer of the Court, we have no intention of destroying them, and there is no clock to run out." (Tr. 10) (§ 7114(b)(4)(A)); and that such data is reasonably available (§ 7114(b)(4)(B)). General Counsel asserts that the data does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel or training provided for management officials or supervisors, relating to collective bargaining" (7114(b)(4)(C)). Respondent does not assert that the data was guidance, advice or counsel, but does assert that it is "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency" within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. Code § 552(b)(5).
6. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy".

References: § 7101
 § 2423
 § 14
 Art. 1
 § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552