31:0907(69)CA - Navy, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Restaurant System, Pearl Harbor, HI and Hawaii FEMTC -- 1988 FLRAdec CA
[ v31 p907 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
31 FLRA No. 69 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY PEARL HARBOR NAVAL SHIPYARD RESTAURANT SYSTEM PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII Respondent and HAWAII FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO Charging Party Case No. 98-CA-70614
I. Statement of the Case
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority under section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, based on the parties' stipulation of facts. The complaint alleges that the U.S. Department of the Navy, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard Restaurant System, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (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 Hawaii Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, AFL - CIO (the Council), the exclusive representative of a unit of the Respondent's employees, with the names and home addresses of those employees. For the reasons stated below, we find that the Respondent committed the unfair labor practices as alleged.
The Council is the exclusive representative of a unit of the Respondent's employees. By letters dated February 20, 1987, and April 27, 1987, the Council requested that the Respondent provide it with the names and home addresses of all unit employees. By letter dated May 8, 1987, the [PAGE] Respondent refused to furnish the Council with the information requested.
The parties stipulated that the Service Employees' International Union, Local 556, AFL - CIO (SEIU), has been and is an affiliated local union of the Council and that SEIU has been designated as the contract administrator for the subject unit. The parties also stipulated that the names and home addresses of the employees are normally maintained by the Respondent in the regular course of business and do not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training for management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining.
III. Positions of the Parties
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. 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 Respondent argues that the decision is inconsistent with section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute and asserts that the Council did not demonstrate that it needed the information to communicate with the employees. The Respondent asserts that the Council designated SEIU as administrator for all representational matters pertaining to the bargaining unit. Therefore, the Council is the exclusive representative for the bargaining unit in name only because it does not perform representational functions for the unit. The Respondent also argues that "(b)ecause SEIU has performed all representation functions for the unit, no presumption of need for names and addresses by the Charging Party can be made." Respondent's Brief at 15. The Respondent further asserts that any requests, including the request for names and home addresses, should come from SEIU.
The Respondent contends that because employees who wish to refrain from forming, joining, or assisting a labor organization are protected under section 7102, the release of names and home addresses will cause those employees to be susceptible to compromise of their right to refrain from union activity. The Respondent also contends that the Authority's decision in Farmers Home is inconsistent with the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act because it ignores the privacy interests of employees. [ v31 p2 ]
The General Counsel argues that the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home is controlling. The General Counsel further contends that while the Council has designated SEIU as the contract administrator, the Contract Administrator derives its authority to engage in representational functions from the Council.
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.
We reject the Respondent's argument that the Council would not have a need for the names and home addresses because SEIU performs all representational functions for the bargaining unit. The Council is the exclusive representative for a unit of Respondent's employees. The fact that SEIU is the contract administrator does not relieve Respondent of its obligation to furnish the names and ho