31:0781(52)CA - Mint, Washington, DC and Mint, Denver, CO and AFGE Local 695 -- 1988 FLRAdec CA



[ v31 p781 ]
31:0781(52)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


31 FLRA No. 52

UNITED STATES MINT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

       and

UNITED STATES MINT, DENVER, COLORADO

              Respondents

       and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 695

              Charging Party

Case No. 7-CA-70735

DECISION AND ORDER

I. Statement of the Case

This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority under section 2429.1(a) of our Regulations, based on the parties' stipulation of facts. The complaint alleges that the United States Mint, Washington, D.C. (Respondent Washington) and the United States Mint, Denver, Colorado (Respondent Denver) violated section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to provide the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 695 (Union) with the names and home addresses of all current and certain former bargaining unit employees of the United States Mint facility in Denver. The Respondents and the General Counsel filed briefs. 1 For the reasons stated below, we find that the Respondents committed the unfair labor practices as alleged. [PAGE]

II. Facts

The Mint Council, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO (Mint Council) is the exclusive representative of a unit of U.S. Mint employees in Denver, Colorado. The Union is an affiliate and agent of the Mint Council. In December 1985, the Union filed grievances which alleged that unit employees were entitled to environmental differential pay because they had been exposed to asbestos. The grievances were consolidated in January 1986, and were pending arbitration as of the time of the parties' stipulation.

By letter dated August 7, 1987, the Union requested that the Respondents furnish it with the names and home addresses of: (1) all current unit employees employed by Respondent Denver; and (2) all unit employees who terminated their employment with Respondent Denver since December 1985, when the grievances were filed. The letter stated that the Union needed the information to communicate with current unit employees regarding the pending grievance arbitration. The letter also stated that the Union needed the information as to the former unit employees to communicate with them, and if appropriate, include them in the pending grievance arbitration. The parties stipulated that both current and former employees, as members of the bargaining unit during the time covered by the grievance arbitration, are entitled to the Union's representation.

On August 18, 1987, and by letter of September 4, 1987, Respondent Washington, on behalf of the Respondents, refused to furnish the Union with the information requested. The letter of September 4 stated that "it is the position of the United States Mint that we are under no obligation to release this information." General Counsel Exhibit 6.

The parties stipulated that: (1) the names and home addresses of the current and former employees are normally maintained by the Respondents in the regular course of [ v31 p2 ] business in the Respondent Denver's personnel office; (2) the information was requested pursuant to the Statute for a grievance arbitration, which is a procedure in the parties' agreement and is within the scope of bargaining; and (3) the information does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training for management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining.

III. Positions of the Parties

The Respondents disagree with the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA 788 (1986) (Farmers Home), enforced in part and remanded sub nom. U.S. Department of Agriculture and Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri v. FLRA, No. 86-2579 (8th Cir. Jan. 15, 1988), petitions for rehearing filed, in which the Authority concluded that section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute entitled the exclusive representative to the names and home addresses of employees in the bargaining unit. The Respondents contend that the release of the employees' home addresses is prohibited by law, specifically, certain provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. The Respondents also cite Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) Supplement 711-1, Appendix C, which they contend prohibits the release of employees' names and home addresses under the "routine use" exemption of the Privacy Act without written permission from the employees concerned. The Respondents further contend that it would be unduly burdensome to compile the home addresses of former unit employees. Finally, the Respondents assert that the Union has alternative means of communicating with employees and, therefore, the Respondents should not be required to release the information requested.

The General Counsel argues that under the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home, the Respondents' conduct in this case violated section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. The General Counsel contends that the Respondents' failure to furnish the current employees' home addresses violates section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute. Noting that the request for the names and home addresses of former employees of the Denver facility is limited to the time period relevant to the pending grievance arbitration, the General Counsel also contends that this request meets the requirements of section 7114(b)(4) and that the Respondents' refusal to furnish the requested information violates the Statute. [ v31 p3 ]

IV. Analysis and conclusion

In the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home, the Authority concluded that the release of the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees to their exclusive representatives is not prohibited by law, is necessary for unions to fulfill their duties under the Statute, and meets all of the other requirements established by section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. The Authority also determined that the release of the information is generally required without regard to whether alternative means of communication are available. Further, from the parties' stipulation, it is evident that the other requirements of section 7114(b)(4)(A), (B), and (C) have been met in this case.

The arguments made by the Respondents in this case are similar to the arguments asserted by the agency in Farmers Home. As to the Respondents' reliance on FPM Supplement 711-1, Appendix C, that Appendix was deleted, along with the entire supplement, on May 16, 1986. Essential material from the supplement was updated and incorporated into FPM chapter 711. The revised chapter does not contain a statement similar to that which the Respondents state was contained in Appendix C and on which they rely. See Veterans Administration Medical Center, Prescott, Arizona, 28 FLRA 743, 744 (1987), application for enforcement filed sub nom. FLRA v. Veterans Administration Medical Center, Prescott, Arizona, No. 87-1470 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 8, 1987).

We find, with respect to the requested information concerning former employees, that the information meets the requirements of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. As stipulated by the parties, the information: (1) is normally maintained by the Respondents in the regular course of business in Respondent Denver's personnel office; (2) was requested by the Union to communicate with employees who terminated their employment at the Denver facility since December 1985 and, if appropriate, to include them in the pending grievance arbitration, which is a procedure in the parties' agreement and is within the scope of bargaining; and (3) does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training for management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining. Further, we reject as unsubstantiated the Respondents' contention that it would be unduly burdensome to compile the requested information with respect to former unit employees. See, for example, 22nd Combat Support Group (SAC), March Air Force Base, California, 30 FLRA 582, 584 (1987). [ v31 p4 ]

Therefore, we find that the Respondents were required to furnish the Charging Party with the names and home addresses of current unit employees at Respondent Denver's facility and former unit employees who terminated their employment at Respondent Denver's facility since December 1985. The Respondents' refusal to do so violated section 7116 (a) (1), (5), and (8) of the Statute. See United States Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois FLRA, No. 87-3005 (3d Cir. Mar. 2, 1988), enforcing Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 24 FLRA 37 (1986); U.S. Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois v. FLRA, No. 87-1143 (7th Cir. Jan. 27, 1988), affirming Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois 24 FLRA 226 (1986); Department of Health and Human Service Social Security Administration v. FLRA, 833 F.2d 1129 (4th Cir. 1987), petition for rehearing filed Jan. 8, 1988, affirming Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, 24 FLRA 543 (1986); Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration and Social Security Administration Field Operations, New York Region, 24 FLRA 583 (1986); Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, 24 FLRA 600 (1986).

ORDER

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute, the United States Mint, Washington, D.C. and the United States Mint, Denver, Colorado shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Refusing to furnish, upon request of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 695, the exclusive representative of certain of its employees, the names and home addresses of all employees in the bargaining unit it represents at the Denver, Colorado facility and all former unit employees who terminated their employment at the Denver, Colorado facility since December 1985.

(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights assured them by the Statute.

2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute: [ v31 p5 ]

(a) Furnish the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 695 with the names and home addresses of all employees in the bargaining unit it represents at the Denver, Colorado facility and all former unit employees who terminated their employment at the Denver, Colorado facility since December 1985.

(b) Post at the Denver, Colorado facility where bargaining unit employees represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 695 are located, copies of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the Director of the United States Mint, Washington, D.C. and the Director of the United States Mint, Denver, Colorado and shall be posted in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and other places where notices to employees are customarily posted, and shall be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

(c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region VII, Federal Labor Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this Order as to what steps have been taken to comply.

Issued, Washington, D.C., March 11, 1988.

Jerry L. Calhoun,        Chairman

Jean McKee,                Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

[ v31 p6 ]

                          NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
            AS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
                   AND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE
             FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE
                       WE NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:

WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish, upon request of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local 695, the exclusive representative of certain of our employees, the names and home addresses of all employees in the bargaining unit it represents at our Denver, Colorado facility and all former unit employees who terminated their employment at our Denver, Colorado facility since December 1985.

WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured them by the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute.

WE WILL furnish the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, local 695 with the names and home addresses of all employees in the bargaining unit it represents at our Denver, Colorado facility and all former unit employees who terminated their employment at our Denver, Colorado facility since December 1985.

                               ____________________________
                                        (Agency)

Dated: ___________________ By: ____________________________
                                 (Signature)  (Title)

                               ____________________________
                                      (Activity)

Dated: ___________________ By: ____________________________
                                 (Signature)  (Title)

This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must, not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. [ v31 p7 ]

If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate-directly with the Regional Director, Region vii, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is: 535 16th Street, Suite 310, Denver, Colorado 80202 and whose telephone number is: (303) 837-5224. [ v31 p 8 ]

FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1 The General Counsel filed a notion to strike Respondents' brief, or in the alternative to strike portions of Respondents' brief which allegedly misrepresented stipulated facts. The Respondents filed an opposition to that motion. In resolving these types of cases, we consider only facts contained in the stipulation. Accordingly, we deny the General Counsel's