28:0035(10)CA - Navy, Naval Air Station, Moffett Field, CA and NFFE Local 759 -- 1987 FLRAdec CA
[ v28 p35 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
28 FLRA No. 10 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR STATION MOFFETT FIELD, CALIFORNIA Respondent and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 759, INDEPENDENT Charging Party Case No. 9-CA-70091
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 upon a stipulation entered into by the parties. The issue is whether 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 Charging Party (the Union), the exclusive representative of a unit of the Respondent's employees, with the names and home addresses of those employees as requested by the Union.
The Union is the exclusive representative of a unit of the Respondent's employees. By letter dated November 20, 1986, the Union requested that the Respondent provide it with the names and home addresses of all the bargaining unit employees. By letter dated November 25, 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. [PAGE]
III. Positions of the Parties
The Respondent contends that the disclosure of the home addresses of employees is prohibited by the Privacy Act. The Respondent disagrees with the Authority's Decision on Remand in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA No. 101 (1986) (Farmers Home), petition for review filed sub nom. U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri v. FLRA, No. 86-2579 (8th Cir. Dec. 23, 1986). The Respondent argues that it was "disconcerting" that the Authority in its decision did not give greater consideration to the potential abuse assertedly inherent in the disclosure of employees' home addresses to an exclusive representative. Finally, the Respondent argues that the Authority ignored Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) Chapter 294, Appendix C, which assertedly provides that labor organizations should not be furnished with employees' home addresses since such disclosure would be an unwarranted intrusion into an employee's personal privacy.
The General Counsel contends that this c