28:0294(41)CA - HHS, SSA and AFGE Council 215 -- 1987 FLRAdec CA
[ v28 p294 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
28 FLRA No. 41
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Respondent and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 215, AFL-CIO Charging Party Case No. 3-CA-70171
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 Respondent, the Charging Party and the General Counsel. 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 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 American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO (AFGE) is the exclusive representative of nationwide consolidated units of the Respondent's professional and nonprofessional employees. AFGE Council 215 (the Union) is the agent of AFGE for the purpose of representing bargaining unit employees at the Respondent's Office of Hearings and Appeals. By letter dated December 3, 1986, the Union requested that the Respondent furnish it with the names and home addresses of all bargaining unit employees assigned to the Office of Hearings and Appeals. By letter dated December 12, 1986, the Respondent denied the request. The parties stipulated that the information requested by the Union is normally maintained by the Respondent in the regular course of business, is [PAGE] reasonably available and necessary, and does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training provided for management officials or supervisors, relating to collective bargaining.
III. Positions of the Parties
The Respondent contends that the release of home addresses of employees is prohibited by the Privacy Act and that the information is not relevant or necessary for the Union to carry out its representational duties. 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 Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri v. FLRA, 86-2579 (8th Cir. Dec. 23, 1986), and requests that the Authority reconsider the decision. In this regard, the Respondent essentially contends that the Authority did not give sufficient weight to the magnitude of the employees' privacy interest in their home addresses and that th