28:1097(142)CA - Air Force, Air Force Contract Management Division, Detachment 45, Baltimore, MD and NFFE Local 1624 -- 1987 FLRAdec CA

[ v28 p1097 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

28 FLRA No. 142





              Charging Party

Case No. 3-CA-70297


I. Statement of the Case

This matter is before the Authority under section 2429.1(a) of our Rules and 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 the General Counsel filed briefs. For the reasons stated below, we find that the Respondent has committed the unfair labor practice alleged.

II. Facts

The Union is the exclusive representative of a unit consisting of all GS employees and professionals employed at the Respondent's Baltimore, Maryland locations. There are approximately 143 employees in the unit. By letter dated February 24, 1987, the Union requested the names and home addresses of the bargaining unit employees. By letter dated March 2, 1987, the Respondent refused to furnish the Union with the data it requested.

The parties stipulated that the information requested is maintained in official personnel folders at the Respondent's Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico facility or in civilian payroll records at its Air Force Accounting and [PAGE] Finance Center, Denver, Colorado, accessible through the Finance Office at Kirtland Air Force Base. The bargaining unit status of employees is maintained by the Respondent in its personnel records, but not in its payroll records. Furthermore, there is no one automated record at the Respondent's facility with the names, home addresses and unit status of its civilian employees. The parties further stipulated that the information does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training provided for management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining.

III. Positions of the Parties

A. The Respondent

The Respondent argues that release of the names and home addresses of employees is contrary to the Privacy Act. The Respondent contends that we erred in 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), in ruling that employees' privacy interests are out-weighed by the needs of the union and that the release of names and home addresses is a "routine use" of the records. The Respondent contends that our finding concerning the "routine use" of the records is not consistent with the provisions of Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) Supplement 711-1, Appendix C.

The Respondent also argues that certain requirements of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute are not met in this case. 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 from employee records but that such a list would not be "reasonably available" as required by section 7114(b)(4)(B). Finally, the Respondent argues that the information requested was not "necessary" within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 7114(b)(4)(B) and that the availability [ v28