33:0249(29)CA - - Energy and Energy, Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center and AFGE Local 1916 - - 1988 FLRAdec CA - - v33 p249
[ v33 p249 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
33 FLRA No. 29
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
PITTSBURGH ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CENTER
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
DECISION AND ORDER
October 24, 1988
Before Chairman Calhoun and Member McKee.
The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent Department of Energy (the Agency) had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint by directing Respondent Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center (the Activity) to refuse to furnish, upon request of the Charging Party, the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees. The Judge further found that Respondent Activity was acting ministerially and without discretion in the matter and dismissed the complaint against that Respondent. The Judge granted the General Counsel's motion for summary judgment and recommended that Respondent Agency be ordered to take appropriate remedial action. Respondent Agency filed exceptions to the Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), we have reviewed the rulings of the Judge and find that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are affirmed. Upon consideration of the Judge's Decision, the exceptions, and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommended Order. See Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA 788 (1986), 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), petition for cert. filed, 57 U.S.L.W. 3186 (U.S. Aug. 26, 1988) (No. 88-349). See also 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, 24 FLRA 226 (1986); Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration v. FLRA, 833 F.2d 1129 (4th Cir. 1987), affirming Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, 24 FLRA 543 (1986); Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration and Social Security Administration Field Operations, New York Region, 24 FLRA 583 (1986); Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, 24 FLRA 600 (1986).
With respect to Respondent Agency's exception to the scope of the Judge's recommended Order, we find that it is appropriate to require Respondent Agency to cease and desist from implementing its established policy of directing component activities to refuse to furnish on request of the Union, or designated agents of the Union, the names and home addresses of employees in the bargaining units they represent. See United States Department of Justice, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C. and United States Department of Justice, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, Houston District Office, Houston, Texas, 31 FLRA 942, 945 (1988), petition for review filed sub nom. United States Department of Justice, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C. and United States Department of Justice, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, Houston District Office, Houston, Texas v. FLRA, No. 88-1290 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 14, 1988).
Further, Respondent Agency contends that the Judge ignored the Agency's "grave national security responsibilities, thereby potentially jeopardizing serious national security interests." Agency's Exceptions at 9. According to the Respondent Agency, the Judge failed to consider the possibility that the release of unit employees' names and home addresses could present an unacceptable security risk. Respondent Agency, however, has not presented evidence that the release of the names and home addresses of unit employees to the Union would endanger the safety of its activities. We note that in Farmers Home the Authority stated that "[d]isclosure need not be made in situations where, for example, the evidence discloses that a union has acted in a manner which leads to the conclusion that the employees whose addresses would be disclosed would be in imminent danger if the union knew where they lived. See, for example, Shell Oil Co. v. NLRB, 457 F.2d