26:0558(65)CA - Navy, Naval Undersea Warfare Engineering Station, Keyport, WA and IAM Local Lodge 282 -- 1987 FLRAdec CA



[ v26 p558 ]
26:0558(65)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 26 FLRA No. 65
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
 NAVEL UNDERSEA WARFARE
 ENGINEERING STATION 
 KEYPORT, WASHINGTON
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
 MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS 
 LOCAL LODGE 282, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 9-CA-60261
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority in accordance
 with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, based
 on a stipulation of facts by the parties, who have agreed that no
 material issue of fact exists.  Briefs have been filed by the Respondent
 and the General Counsel.
 
    The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated section
 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute (the Statute) by failing and refusing to provide the
 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local
 Lodge 282, AFL-CIO (the Union), the exclusive representative of a unit
 of the Respondent's employees, with the names and home addresses of unit
 employees.
 
    II.  Facts
 
    The union is the exclusive representative of a unit of all
 non-professional General Schedule employees of the Respondent Naval
 Undersea Warfare Engineering Station who work at the Keyport, Bangor and
 Indian Island sites.  By letter dated April 10, 1986, the Union
 requested the names and home addresses of all bargaining unit employees.
  By letter dated April 16, 1986, the Respondent denied the request.  The
 parties stipulated that the names and home addresses of the employees
 are normally maintained by the Respondent in the regular course of
 business;  are reasonably available;  and do not constitute guidance,
 advice, counsel or training provided to management officials or
 supervisors relating to collective bargaining.
 
    III.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Respondent contends that disclosure of the home addresses of the
 bargaining unit employees to the Union is prohibited by law.  Further,
 the Respondent contends that neither the Union nor the General Counsel
 established that the information was relevant and necessary to the
 Union's representational duties.  The Respondent maintains that at the
 time of its refusal to furnish the information, it had no reason to
 conclude that its conduct was not consistent with law.  For those
 reasons, the Respondent contends that it did not commit an unfair labor
 practice.
 
    The General Counsel argues that this case is controlled by the
 Authority's decision on remand in F