At this time FLRA remains fully operational. Effective Friday July 31, 2020, the agency now extends the prohibition on in-person filings indefinitely.  

See details: here.

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

31:0913(70)CA - VA, Washington, DC and VA Medical Center, Battle Creek, MI and AFGE Local 1629 -- 1988 FLRAdec CA

[ v31 p913 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

31 FLRA No. 70





                   Charging Party

Case No. 5-CA-70091
   (30 FLRA 937)


This case is before us on the Respondent's motion for reconsideration of our January 21, 1988, decision in the above-cited case.

In our decision, we adopted the Administrative Law Judge's findings that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by its refusal to furnish the names and home addresses of the Medical Center employees.

In its motion for reconsideration, the Respondent requests that the Authority reconsider its decision in this matter based on the following factors: (1) the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in The United States Department of Agriculture and the Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri v. FLRA, No. 86-2579 (Farmers Home) (8th Cir. Jan. 15, 1988) petitions for rehearing filed; and (2) the testimony of Frederic Jones, rejected by the Judge as irrelevant, in which he strongly objected to the release of his address to the Charging Party because he considered it to be an invasion of his privacy. [PAGE]

Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party who can establish "extraordinary circumstances" to request reconsideration of a final decision or order of the Authority. We conclude that the Respondent has not established "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 2429.17.

The arguments presented by the Respondent in support of its request rely on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Respondent asserts that the decision and the testimony of Frederic Jones requires the Authority to now reach a different result in this case. We find no basis in the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsidering our decision in this case. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld our decision that an Agency must provide the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees pursuant to a request from a union. The Court also concluded that "both the interests in privacy and disclosure will be optimally served by requiring disclosure of the names and home addresses of only those employees who do not request their employees to keep the information confidential." (Farmers Home) slip op. at 10. Petitions for a rehearing before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals have been filed by the Respondent in this case and by the Authority. Therefore, the decision is not yet final.

We also note that subsequent to the decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Authority decisions requiring the release of names and home addresses were upheld in the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Third and Seventh Circuit. See United States Department of the Navy and Philadelphia Naval Shipyard v. FLRA, No. 87-3005 (3rd Cir. Mar. 2, 1988), enforcing Philadelphia Naval Shipyard 24 FLRA 37 (1986); U.S. Department of the Air Force Scott Air Force Base, Illinois v. FLRA, NO. 87-1143 (7th Cir. Jan. 27, 1988), petition for rehearing filed Mar. 16, 1988, affirming Department of the Air Force Scott Air Force Base Illinois, 24 FLRA 226 (1986). See also Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration v. FLRA, 833 F.2d 1129 (4th Cir. 1987), petition for rehearing filed Jan. 8, 1988, affirming Department of Health and Human [ v31 p2 ] Services, Social Security Administration, 24 FLRA 543 (1986). The Respondent's motion is, therefore, denied.

Issued, Washington, D.C., March 23, 1988

Jerry L. Calhoun,        Chairman

Jean McKee,                Member