28:0589(74)CA - Navy, Navy Resale and Services Support Office, Field Support Office, San Diego, CA and NFFE Local 63 -- 1987 FLRAdec CA
[ v28 p589 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
28 FLRA No. 74
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVY RESALE & SERVICES SUPPORT OFFICE FIELD SUPPORT OFFICE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA Respondent and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 63 Charging Party Case No. 8-CA-70187
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.
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 National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 63 (the Charging Party), with the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees located at the Navy Resale and Services Support Office, Field Support Office in San Diego, California.
The National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 63, is the exclusive representative in a unit composed of Civil Service commissary Store Division employees in the San Diego area (Naval Station, Miramar, Naval Training Center, El Centro, and Division Headquarters) of the Naval Resale and Services Support Office, Field Support Office, San Diego, California. By letter dated December 5, 1986, the Charging Party requested that the Respondent furnish it with the names and home addresses of all unit employees. The Charging Party stated in its letter that the requested information was needed to communicate with unit employees on matters such as changes in personnel policies, practices, and conditions of [PAGE] employment. The Charging Party further indicated that it viewed the use of employees' names and home addresses to be an expeditious means of contact for input and proper contract administration and negotiation, noting in particular that the sox commissary stores in the bargaining unit were spread over a 100 mile area. By letter dated January 16, 1987, the Respondent refused to furnish the Union with the information requested.
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 General Counsel argues that the Au