28:0859(112)CA - DOD, Navy, Washington, DC and DOD, Navy, Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, TX and DOD, Navy, Naval Hospital, Corpus Christi, TX -- 1987 FLRAdec CA
[ v28 p859 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
28 FLRA No. 112 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY WASHINGTON, D.C. Agency and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AIR STATION, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS Activity and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL HOSPITAL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS Activity Respondents and NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 797 Charging Party Case No. 6-CA-60500 6-CA-60502
I. Statement of the Case
This consolidated proceeding is before the Authority under section 2429.1(a) of our Regulations based on the parties' stipulation of facts. The amended consolidated complaint alleges that the Respondents violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to provide the Union with the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees. It also alleges that the Respondent Agency unlawfully interfered with the bargaining [PAGE] relationship between the Respondent Activities and the Union by instructing the Activities not to supply the names and home addresses to the Union. The Respondents and the General Counsel have filed briefs.
The Union represents two units of employees including (1) all nonprofessional Civil Service employees of the Naval Hospital, Corpus Christi, Texas, and (2) all nonprofessional Civil Service employees of the Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas. On or about August 18, 1986, the Union requested lists of names and home addresses of employees in these two units. On or about August 22, 1986, James Warren, labor advisor for the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, advised the Union that the requests were denied. This denial stated, among other things, that the issue "is currently the subject of litigation in the Federal courts," and that "in accordance with the Department of the Navy policy regarding disclosure of such information, your request is denied pending resolution of current litigation."
The parties have stipulated that the Respondents maintain a list of names and home addresses of all bargaining unit employees. There is no assertion that the information constitutes guidance, counsel, advice, or training provided for management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining. As noted below in the section entitled "Positions of the Parties," the Respondents concede that our decision on remand in Farmers Hone Administration Finance Office, St., Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA No. 101 (1986) (Farmers Home), Petition for review filed sub non. U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri v. FLRA, No. 86-2579 (8th Cir. Dec 23, 1986), appears to be dispositive of this case, although the Respondents disagree with that case.
III. Positions of the Parties
A. The Respondents
The Respondents concede that our decision on remand in Farmers Home is dispositive of this case, but disagree with our rationale in that case and its application here. The Respondents argue that release of the names and home addresses of employees is contrary to the Privacy Act, and is not "relevant or necessary" for the Union to carry out its representational duties. Also, the Respondents contest the [ v28 p2 ] allegation of the complaint that Respondent Department of the Navy interfered with the bargaining relationship between the Respondent Activities and the Union.
B. The General Counsel
In addition to arguing that this case is controlled by our decision on remand in Farmers Home, the General Counsel argues that Respondent Agency, Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, violated section 7116(1) and (5) of the Statute 1 by interfering with the collective bargaining relationship between the Activities and the Union. The General Counsel asserts that the Agency prevented the Activities from fulfilling their obligation.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
In our decision on remand in Farmers Home, we held that the release of names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees to 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 of section 7114(b)(4). Our 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. We found that both exceptions to the Privacy Act's bar applied so as to authorize release of the information under the Privacy Act. The Respondents concede that under Farmers Home, the requirements of the Privacy Act have been met. We also found in Farmers Hone that the release of the information is generally required without regard to whether alternative means of communication are available. In this case we also find that the Respondent Activities' refusal to provide the Union with names and home addresses of unit employees violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.
In addition to alleging that the Respondent Activities violated the Statute, the General Counsel alleged that the Department of the Navy, a higher level of management, interfered with the bargaining relationship between the Activities and the Union, where the level of exclusive [ v28 p3 ] recognition exists. The allegation is based on the letter denying the request for names and home addresses, because the letter stated, among other things, that it is Agency policy not to release such information pending resolution of the' litigation in progress over that issue. However, we conclude that the General Counsel has not established by this reference a prima facie case that the Department of the Navy required the Activities at the level of exclusive recognition to refuse to furnish the data. We have long held that higher level management would be held responsible for requiring management at the level of exclusive recognition to follow its directions. See, for example, Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Region VI and Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Galveston, Texas, 10 FLRA 26 (1982). However, the reference in the letter to a policy is inadequate to establish such a violation here.
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal Servic