29:1266(97)CA - Navy, Naval Supply Center, Pearl Harbor, HI and Hawaii FEMTC -- 1987 FLRAdec CA
[ v29 p1266 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
29 FLRA No. 97 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL SUPPLY CENTER PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII Respondent and HAWAII FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO Charging Party Case No. 98-CA-70327
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 Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Center, 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) with the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees located at the Naval Supply Center in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. 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 employees of the Respondent. The Council and the Respondent are parties to a collective bargaining agreement which provides that the Respondent shall recognize the officials and designated representatives of the Council. Pursuant to the Council's by-laws, the Council designated the Service Employees International Union, Local 556, AFL - CIO (SEIU) as the contract administrator for the bargaining unit. Under those by-laws, a contract administrator may be appointed by the Council to assist it in conducting its [PAGE] business in certain units where the Council is the exclusive representative. The contract administrator may be relieved in accordance with the by-laws.
In its role as contract administrator SEIU has, on behalf of the Council, filed and processed grievances, unfair labor practice charges (except for the instant charge), and performed other unit representational functions. The agreement between the Council and the Respondent was negotiated by representatives of SEIU on behalf of the Council. The agreement, which is signed by representatives of the Council, SEIU, and the Respondent, is subject to an internal union review which could affect the status of the contract administrator.
By letter dated February 20, 1987, the Council requested that the Respondent furnish it with the names and home addresses of all unit employees. On receipt of the letter, the Respondent contacted SEIU and was informed by SEIU that it was unaware of the request and had no desire for the names and addresses of unit employees. By letter dated February 25, 1987, the Respondent informed the Council that it refused to act on its request until notification was received from SEIU stating that SEIU was in need of the information requested. SEIU has not requested the names and home addresses of unit employees. The parties stipulated that since February 25, 1987, and continuing to date, the Respondent has refused to provide the Council with the names and home addresses which the Council requested.
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; are reasonably available; and do not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training provided to management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining.
III. Positions of the Parties
A. The Respondent
The Respondent contends that the information requested is prohibited by both the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). The Respondent asserts that the Authority erred in its ruling in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA No. 101 (1986) (Farmers Home), petition for review filed sub nom. U.S. Department of Agriculture and Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri v. FLRA, No. 86-2579 (8th Cir. Dec. 23, 1986). Further, the [ v29 p2 ] Respondent argues that the release of the names and home addresses of unit employees to the Council is not required under section 7114(b)(4)(B) of the Statute because SEIU performs the Council's representational functions, and therefore it cannot be said that the Council requires the information for a representational purpose.
B. The General Counsel
The General Counsel argues that the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home, 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, is dispositive of the issue in this case. The General Counsel also contends that there is no merit to the Respondent's argument that the Council has no need for the information in light of SEIU's performance of the Council's representational functions.
In our Decision and Order on Remand in Farmers Home, we 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. We also determined that the release of the information is generally required without regard to whether alternate means of communication are available. Further, from the parties' stipulation, it is evident that the other requirements of section 7114(b)(4)(A), (B), and (C) have been met in this case.
The arguments made by the Respondent in this case are for the most part the same as those asserted by the agency in Farmers Home, and we reject them for the reasons stated in Farmers Home. For the following reasons, we also reject the Respondent's contention that it has no obligation to provide the Council with the requested information because SEIU is performing the Council's representational functions.
The Council is the certified exclusive representative of the bargaining unit. Both the Council and the contract administrator, SEIU, are signatories to the collective bargaining agreement, from which certain rights and obligations flow. The contract administrator's authority to perform the Council's representational functions is derived solely from the Council and is subject to change by the Council in accordance with the Council's by-laws. Moreover, [ v29 p3 ] by virtue of its status as the exclusive representative of the unit, the Council has certain rights and responsibilities under the Statute regarding the representation of unit employees. Section 7114(b)(4)(B) of the Statute states that an agency has the obligation to furnish, upon request, certain data "to the exclusive representative involved, or its authorized representative(.)" As we stated in Farmers Home (see slip op. at 8), a union's statutory obligations involve a broad range of represent