43:0455(44)CA - - SSA, Hemet Branch Office, Hemet, CA and AFGE - - 1991 FLRAdec CA - - v43 p455
[ v43 p455 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
43 FLRA No. 44
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
HEMET BRANCH OFFICE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
December 18, 1991
DECISION AND ORDER
I. Statement of the Case
The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding 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 furnish the Charging Party with the home address of a specified bargaining unit employee represented by the Charging Party. The Judge granted the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment as to this allegation of the complaint and recommended that the Respondent be ordered to take appropriate remedial action. The Respondent filed exceptions to this portion of the Judge's decision.
The Judge also found that the Respondent did not violate section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by refusing the Charging Party's request for the employee's home telephone number. Accordingly, the Judge dismissed the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment as to this allegation and recommended that this portion of the complaint be dismissed. The Charging Party filed exceptions to the Judge's decision and the Respondent filed an opposition to the exceptions.
In concluding that the Respondent was not obligated to furnish the employee's telephone number, the Judge looked to the reasons underlying the release of home addresses as espoused by the Authority in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA 788 (1986). The Judge particularly noted the ability of unions to better serve employees in a non-work environment, so as to promote a free exchange of information, and the ability of employees to protect their individual privacy interests by such means as discarding unsolicited mail from the union.
Applying the foregoing considerations to this case, the Judge found that receipt of the employee's home address would provide the Charging Party with "unrestricted access to the employee for purposes of conducting its representational responsibilities and [that the Charging Party] would have no 'necessity' for the employee's telephone number." Judge's Decision at 4. The Judge concluded that, absent a showing that the employee's telephone number was necessary for the Charging Party to perform its representational responsibilities, section 7114(b) of the Statute did not compel the disclosure of such information. The Judge further found that having possession of the employee's name and home address would give the Charging Party ready access to the employee's telephone number through the use of a telephone directory. Finally, the Judge noted that, unlike the receipt of mail, the employee could not ignore or "'discard'" unwanted telephone calls and, thus, the employee would be unable to protect privacy interests in the same manner as the receipt of mail. Id.
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Statute, we have reviewed the rulings of the Judge and find that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon consideration of the Judge's decision, the exceptions and opposition, and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommended Order for the reasons fully set forth in U.S. Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 37 FLRA 515 (1990) (Portsmouth Naval Shipyard), enforcement denied sub nom. FLRA v. U.S. Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 941 F.2d 49 (1st Cir. 1991) (FLR