27:0857(93)CA SEIU VS VA -- 1987 FLRAdec CA
[ v27 p857 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
27 FLRA NO. 93
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION (WASHINGTON, D.C.) and VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER (MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE) Respondent and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SEIU, AFL-CIO Charging Party Case No. 1-CA-70086 1-CA-70087 1-CA-70088
I. Statement of the Case
This consolidated proceeding is before the Authority under section 2429.1(a) of our Regulations based on the parties' stipulation of facts. 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 refusing to provide the Union with names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees. The General Counsel filed a brief. For the reasons below, we find that the Respondent has committed the unfair labor practices as alleged.
The Union represents approximately 500 employees in three units at the Respondent's Manchester, New Hampshire Medical Center. Local R1-17 represents nonprofessional employees, Local R1-235 represents General Schedule (GS) professional employees, and Local R1-142 represents Title 38 professional employees. By letter dated September 18, 1986, the union requested names and home addresses of employees in the GS professional unit. By letter dated September 25, 1986, the Respondent provided name, grade, title, salary and duty stations of all members of the local representing these employees but declined to supply home addresses. By letter dated November 12, 1986, the Union requested names and home addresses of all employees in all three of the units it represents. The Respondent denied the request on the grounds that home addresses could not be provided because of the Privacy Act and because the information was not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Since September 25, 1986 and November 12, 1986, the Respondent has refused and continues to refuse to provide to the Union the requested home addresses with the names of unit employees.
The parties have stipulated that the information sought by the Union is normally maintained by the Respondent in the regular course of business, is reasonably available and does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel or training for management officials or supervisors, relating to collective bargaining. The parties agree that the only issues are whether the information, home addresses of unit employees, was necessary for the Union's representational purposes, and whether disclosure was prohibited by law.
III. Positions of the Parties
The General Counsel argues that our decision on remand in Farmers Hom