44:1267(106)CA - - BIA, Washington, DC and BIA, Navajo Area, Gallup, NM and BIA, Albuquerque Area, Albuquerque, NM and National Council of Bureau of Indian Affairs Educators, Local 4524, AFT - - 1992 FLRAdec CA - - v44 p1267
[ v44 p1267 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
44 FLRA No. 106
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
NAVAJO AREA, GALLUP, NEW MEXICO
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF BUREAU OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS EDUCATORS, LOCAL 4524, AFT
DECISION AND ORDER
May 22, 1992
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the above-entitled proceeding finding that Respondents Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Area, Gallup, New Mexico (Navajo) and Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque Area, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Albuquerque) 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 Union with the requested names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees represented by the Union. The Judge granted the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment with respect to these Respondents and recommended that they be ordered to take appropriate remedial action. The Judge further found that Respondent Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) did not violate the Statute and recommended dismissal of the portion of the complaint concerning Respondent BIA. Respondents Navajo and Albuquerque filed exceptions to the Judge's decision. The General Counsel did not file an opposition to the exceptions.
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 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).
On January 24, 1992, a majority of the panel in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted the Authority's application for enforcement of U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, 37 FLRA 663 (1990), in which the Authority relied on Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. See FLRA v. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, 954 F.2d 994 (4th Cir. 1992), petition for rehearing en banc granted Apr. 22, 1992. Subsequently, a majority of the panel in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the Authority's application for enforcement of several Authority decisions based on Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. See FLRA v. U.S. Department of the Navy, Navy Resale and Services Support Office, Field Support Office, Auburn, Washington, No. 90-70511 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 1992) (petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc pending).
Further, in FLRA v. U.S. Department of the Navy, Navy Ships Parts Control Center, 944 F.2d 1088 (3d Cir. 1991), a divided Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied the Authority's petition for enforcement of U.S. Department of the Navy, Navy Ships Parts Control Center and Navy Fleet Material Support Office and NAVSEA Logistics Center and Navy Publishing and Printing Service, 37 FLRA 722 (1990), in which the Authority relied on Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. However, on November 5, 1991, the panel's decision in that case was vacated and the Authority's petition for rehearing en banc was granted. But see FLRA v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, D.C. and United States Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Newington, Connecticut, No. 91-4049 (2d Cir. Mar. 5, 1992) (petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc pending) (panel denied enforcement of Authority decision); FLRA v. Department of the Navy, Naval Resale Activity, Naval Air Station-Memphis, Millington, Tennessee, No. 91-3450 (6th Cir. Apr. 29, 1992) (ma