37:0799(65)CA - - DOI, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC and NFFE Local 1957 - - 1990 FLRAdec CA - - v37 p799
[ v37 p799 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
37 FLRA No. 65
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. BUREAU OF MINES
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
DECISION AND ORDER
September 28, 1990
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority in accordance with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, based on a stipulation of facts by the parties, who have agreed that no material issue of fact exists.
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 failing and refusing to provide the Union with the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees represented by the Union. For the following reasons, we find that the Respondent violated the Statute as alleged in the complaint.
The Union is the exclusive representative of a unit of the Respondent's employees. By memorandum dated May 5, 1988, the Union requested that the Respondent furnish it with the names and home addresses of all bargaining unit employees. By letter dated June 7, 1988, the Respondent denied the Union's request.
The parties stipulated that the requested names and home addresses are "located in official personnel files but Respondent makes no attempt to update or keep current such information, and does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel or training provided for management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining." Stipulation, para. 7.
III. Positions of the Parties
The General Counsel argues that this case is "controlled" by the Authority's decision in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA 788 (1986) (Farmers Home), where the Authority concluded that, under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, the union was entitled to the names and home addresses of employees in the bargaining unit it represented. General Counsel's Brief at 3. Based on Farmers Home, and subsequent decisions following Farmers Home, the General Counsel maintains that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute. The General Counsel asserts that the fact that home addresses maintained by the Respondent may not be current does not "excuse it from producing the information in its possession." Id. at 3 n.
The Respondent asserts that the release of employees' home addresses is prohibited by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, because that release constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. The Respondent asserts also that it was not required to supply the requested names and home addresses in this case because (1) the Union did not demonstrate that the data was necessary, (2) the Union has alternative means of communicating with unit employees, and (3) section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute "deals exclusively with the actual process of negotiations . . . ." Respondent's Brief at 2.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
In U.S. Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 37 FLRA No. 39 (1990) (Portsmouth Naval Shipyard), the Authority reaffirmed Farmers Home and concluded that the release of names and home addresses of unit employees to the unions that represent them is not prohibited by law, is necessary for unions to fulfill their representational responsibilities under the Statute, and meets all of the other requirements of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. The Authority determined also that the release of home addresses generally is required without regard to whether alternative means of communication are available to the requesting union.
The parties stipulated that the requested data "is located in official personnel files . . . and does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel or training provided for management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining." Stipulation, para. 7. As the Respondent makes no argument to the contrary, we conclude that the requirements of section 7114(b)(4)(A), (B), and (C) have been met in this case.(*) Accordingly, consistent with the stipulation and based on the Authority's decision in Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, we find that the Respondent was required to furnish the Union with the requested names and home addresses of employees in the bargaining unit represented by the Union. The Respondent's refusal to do so violated section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute. We note, in particular, that, consistent with Portsmouth N