28 FLRA No. 94

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
HEADQUARTERS 836TH COMBAT
SUPPORT GROUP (TAC),
DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE
BASE, ARIZONA

                  Respondent

      and
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

                  Charging Party

Case No. 8-CA-70226

DECISION AND ORDER

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 the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees. The Respondent filed a brief. 1 For the reasons below, we find that the Respondent has committed the unfair labor practices as alleged.

II. Facts

The Union represents approximately 214 employees in a unit of non-appropriated fund employees at Davis - Monthan Air Force Base. By letter dated January 8, 1987, the Union requested the names and home addresses of all employees in the exclusive unit. By letter of January 13, 1987, the Respondent refused to provide the information to the Union. [PAGE]

The parties have stipulated that the information is maintained in the Respondent's non-appropriated fund payroll files and may be obtained from there. However, payroll records do not provide a listing of employee names and home addresses identifiable by bargaining unit status. Only the Respondent's personnel records indicate the bargaining unit status of non-appropriated fund employees. The parties have also stipulated that the information does not constitute guidance, counsel, advice, or training provided for management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining.

III. Positions of the Parties

The Respondent concedes that our 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), is dispositive of several issues, but urges us to reverse that decision. Thus, the Respondent argues that release of the names and home addresses of employees is contrary to the Privacy Act, and also that availability of alternate methods of communication with employees would in some situations be sufficient to preclude the requirement of release of home addresses.

In addition, the Respondent argues that certain requirements of section 7114(b)(4) are not met here. Thus, it argues that such records are not normally maintained in the regular course of business as required by section 7114(b)(4)(A) because (1) names and home addresses are in payroll records which do not identify them by bargaining unit status; and (2) there is no automated record at the Respondent's