31:0860(62)CA - DOD, Maxwell AFB, AL and AFGE Local 997 -- 1988 FLRAdec CA
[ v31 p860 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
31 FLRA No. 62 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA Respondent and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 997, AFL-CIO Charging Party Case No. 4-CA-70746
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 Department of Defense, Maxwell Air Force Base, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama (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 American Federation of Government Employees, Local 997, AFL - CIO (the Union), with the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees located at Maxwell Air Force Base and Gunter Air Force Station, who are paid from appropriated and non-appropriated funds. The Respondent and the General Counsel filed briefs. For the reasons stated below, we find that the Respondent committed the unfair labor practices as alleged.
The Union is the exclusive representative of two units of the Respondent's employees. By letters dated June 5, 15, and 24, 1987, the Union requested that the Respondent provide it with the names and home addresses of the bargaining unit employees at Maxwell Air Force Base and [PAGE] Gunter Air Force Station. By memoranda dated June 17 and 29, 1987 and July 7, 1987, the Respondent denied the requests.
The parties stipulated that no single record, automatic or manual, identifies bargaining unit status and the names and home addresses of civilian employees paid from appropriated and non-appropriated funds. The parties also stipulated that the names and home addresses can be automatically and/or manually merged from several sources; namely, the Official Personnel Folder (OPF), the Supervisor's Employee Brief (Form 971), the "Personnel Data System - Civilian" (PDS - C), and the civilian payroll system. The parties further stipulated that the information requested does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel or training provided for management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining.
III. Positions of the Parties
The Respondent argues that the release of the names and home addresses of employees is precluded by the Privacy Act and maintains that it should not be required to release the information requested because the Union has alternative means of communicating with unit employees. The Respondent disagrees 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. January 15, 1988) petitions for rehearing filed, and asserts the Authority erred in that decision and others. The Respondent further asserts that the information sought is not "normally maintained" or "reasonably available" within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4)(A) and (B) of the Statute and that it would be unduly burdensome and costly to compile the information.
The General Counsel argues that the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home, 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, and the subsequent cases relying on Farmers Home, are dispositive of the issues in this case. The General Counsel contends that the Respondent's failure to furnish the Union with names and home addresses of unit employees violates section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute. [ v31 p2 ]
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
The arguments made by the Respondent are similar to the arguments asserted by the agency in Farmers Home. In the Authority's decision and order 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's decision in Farmers Home analyzed the two exceptions to the Privacy Act's bar to disclosure of personal information pertinent to the release of employees' names and home addresses: exception(b)(2), concerning the Freedom of Information Act; and exception(b)(3), relating to "routine use" of information. The Authority found that both exceptions to the Privacy Act's bar applied so as to authorize release of the information under the Privacy Act. The Authority also determined that the release of the information is generally required without regard to whether alternative means of communication are available.
The Respondent argues that the requested information is not normally maintained and reasonably available. We find, contrary to the Respondent's position, that the information is maintained in the regular course of business in the employees' OPFs and payroll records and that the Respondent has the capability to obtain the bargaining unit status of the employees. The Respondent asserts it would be unduly burdensome to compile the requested information. It is clear from the parties' stipulation that the requested information could be derived from the various records within relatively short periods of time. We, therefore, find no merit in the Respondent's argument that the information is not normally maintained or reasonably available. Air Force Contract Management Division, Detachment 12, Air Force Representative Office, Canoga Park, California, 30 FLRA 313 (1987).
Therefore, based on the parties' stipulation and the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home, we find that the Respondent was required to furnish he Union with the names and home addresses of employees in the bargaining units it represents. The Respondent's refusal to do so violated section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute. See United States Department of the Navy and Philadelphia Naval Shipya