28:0948(120)CA - Air Force, 92d Combat Support Group, Fairchild AFB, WA and NFFE Local 11 -- 1987 FLRAdec CA



[ v28 p948 ]
28:0948(120)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


28 FLRA No. 120

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
92D COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP,
FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE, WASHINGTON

                     Respondent

      and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 11, INDEPENDENT

                     Charging Party

Case No. 9-CA-70198

DECISION AND ORDER

I. Statement of the Case

This matter 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 and General Counsel filed briefs. For the reasons stated below, we find that the Respondent has committed the unfair labor practices as alleged.

II. Facts

The Union represents a unit of employees paid from appropriated funds and serviced by the Fairchild Air Force Base Civilian Personnel Office. The unit has approximately 417 employees. By letter dated January 21, 1987, the Union requested the names and home addresses of all employees in the exclusive unit. By letter dated January 23, 1987, the Respondent refused to provide the information to the Union.

The parties have stipulated that the information is maintained in the Respondent's appropriated fund payroll files and may be obtained from there. However, the payroll records do not identify employees by bargaining unit status. [PAGE]

That information is contained in the Respondent's personnel records. Furthermore, there is no automated record at the Respondent's facility with the names, home addresses and unit status of appropriated fund civilian employees. The parties further stipulate 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

A. The Respondent

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 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. 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 in some situations would be sufficient to preclude the requirement of release of names and home addresses.

In addition, the Respondent argues that certain requirements of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute are not met here. Specifically, it argues that the 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 are not identified by bargaining unit status; and (2) there is no automated record at the Respondent's facility which contains the names, home addresses and bargaining unit status of appropriated fund civilian employees. The Respondent concedes that a list could be created manually by going through the records of the employees. Because such a list would have to be created, the Respondent also argues that the data are not "reasonably available" as required by section 7114(b)(4)(B).

B. The General Counsel

The General Counsel argues that our decision in Farmers Home and subsequent cases relying on it are controlling in this case. The General Counsel submits that the Respondent's refusal to provide the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees violates section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute and constitutes the unfair labor practices alleged in the