32:0073(9)CA - - Air Force, Davis-Monthan AFB, Tucson, AZ and AFGE Local 2924 - - 1988 FLRAdec CA - - v32 p73
[ v32 p73 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
32 FLRA No. 9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR FORCE BASE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 2924, AFL-CIO
Case No. 8-CA-80095
DECISION AND ORDER
I. Statement of the Case
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority under section 2429.1(a) of our Regulations, based on the parties' stipulation of facts. The complaint alleges that the Department of the Air Force, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, Arizona (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 American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2924, AFL-CIO (the Union), with the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees located at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. The Respondent and the General Counsel filed briefs. For the reasons stated below, we find that the Respondent committed the unfair labor practices as alleged.
The Union is the exclusive representative of three units of the Respondent's employees. By letter dated October 13, 1987, the Union requested that the Respondent provide it with the names and home addresses of the bargaining unit employees. By letter dated October 19, 1987, the Respondent provided the Union with the bargaining unit employees' names, date entered on duty at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, pay plan, office symbol or duty location, title and their career status. The Respondent refused to release the home addresses of the bargaining unit employees. Stipulation, Exhibit 1(e).
The parties stipulated that: (1) the names and home addresses are maintained in Respondent's appropriated fund payroll files; (2) there is an automated system which currently exists which when merged will produce a list of the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees; (3) the list would have to be produced during the computer's down time; (4) only the Respondent's personnel records indicate the bargaining unit status of appropriated fund employees; and (5) the names and home addresses do not constitute guidance, counsel, advice, or training provided for management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining.
III. Positions of the Parties
The Respondent contends that the release of the home addresses of all bargaining unit members to the Union is precluded by the Privacy Act. Although the Respondent disagrees with the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA 788 (1986) (Farmers Home), enforced in part and remanded sub nom. U.S. Department of Agriculture and Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri v. FLRA, 836 F.2d 1139 (8th Cir. 1988), it concedes that the decision, if adhered to by the Authority and sustained on appeal, is dispositive of the privacy issue.
The Respondent asserts that the information sought is not "normally maintained" or "reasonably available" within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4)(A) and (B) of the statute. The Respondent further asserts that the information is not "necessary" within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4)(B) of the Statute because the Union did not provide any reason or justification for the information requested. Finally, the Respondent contends that it should not be required to release the information requested because the Union has alternative means of communicating with employees.
The General Counsel contends that all of the Respondent's arguments have been rejected by the Authority in Farmers Home or in subsequent decisions of the Authority pertaining to requests for the release of names and home addresses. The General Counsel argues that the Respondent's failure to furnish the Union with the names and home addresses of unit employees violates section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute.
IV. Analysis and Conclusion
The arguments made by the Respondent are similar to the arguments asserted by the agency in Farmers Home. In the Authority's decision and order on remand in Farmers Home, the Authority 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.
The Authority's 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. The Authority found that both exceptions to the Privacy Act's bar applied so as to authorize release of the information under the Privacy Act. The Authority also determined that the release of the information is generally required without regard to whether alternative means of communication are available.
The Respondent argues that the requested information is not normally maintained and reasonably available. We find, contrary to the Respondent's position, that the information is maintained in the regular course of business in the Respondent's appropriated fund payroll files and personnel records. We, therefore, find no merit in the Respondent's argument that the information is not normally maintained or reasonably available.
Accordingly, based on the parties' stipulation and the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home, we find that the Respondent was required to furnish the Union with the names and home addresses of employees in the bargaining units it represents. Merely providing the Union with the employee names and other information did not fulfill the Union's request. The Respondent's refusal to provide the Union with the names and home addresses violated section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute. See United States Department of the Navy and Philadelphia Naval Shipyard v. FLRA, 840 F.2d 1131 (3d Cir. 1988), enforcing Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 24 FLRA 37 (1986); U.S. Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois v. FLRA, 838 F.2d 229 (7th Cir. 1988), affirming Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois v. FLRA, 24 FLRA 226 (1986); Department of Health and Human Services