37:0707(56)CA - - Navy, Naval Hospital, Oakland, CA and AFGE Local 1931 - - 1990 FLRAdec CA - - v37 p707
[ v37 p707 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
37 FLRA No. 56
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
DECISION AND ORDER
September 28, 1990
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
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 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 Union with the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees represented by the Union. For the following reasons, we find that the Respondent violated the Statute as alleged in the complaint.
The Union is the exclusive representative of a unit of the Respondent's employees. By letter dated September 30, 1988, the Union requested that the Respondent furnish it with the names and home addresses of all bargaining unit employees. On March 9, 1989, the Union's president again requested that the Union be provided with the names and home addresses. On or about March 9, 1989, the Respondent's Civilian Personnel Officer denied the Union's request.
The parties stipulated that the requested names and home addresses: (1) are normally maintained by the Respondent in the regular course of business; (2) are reasonably available; and (3) do not constitute guidance, advice, counsel or training provided to management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining. Stipulation, para. 9.
III. Positions of the Parties
The General Counsel argues that this case is "controlled" by the Authority's decision in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA 788 (1986) (Farmers Home), where the Authority concluded that, under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, the union was entitled to the names and home addresses of employees in the bargaining unit it represented. General Counsel's Brief at 2. Based on Farmers Home, and subsequent decisions following Farmers Home, the General Counsel maintains that the Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute.
The Respondent argues that Farmers Home was incorrectly decided. The Respondent asserts that the release of employees' home addresses is prohibited by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. º 552a, because that release constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. º 552. The Respondent asserts also that Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) chapter 294, Appendix C prohibits release of the employees' home addresses.
Finally, the Respondent claims that "[i]t would be grossly unfair to now find the Respondent's actions to be violative of the Statute when such actions were consistent with prior Authority case law." Respondent's Brief at 9. The Respondent asserts that at the time the complaint was issued in this case, the "overwhelming case law of the FLRA held that the home addresses of bargaining unit employees were prohibited from disclosure to the Union by the Privacy Act." Id. at 2 (footnote omitted).
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
In U.S. Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 37 FLRA No. 39 (1990) (Portsmouth Naval Shipyard), the Authority reaffirmed Farmers Home and concluded that the release of names and home addresses of unit employees to the unions that represent them is not prohibited by law, is necessary for unions to fulfill their representational responsibilities under the Statute, and meets all of the other requirements of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. The Authority determined also that the release of home addresses generally is required without regard to whether alternative means of communication are available to the requesting union.
The Respondent acknowledges that the complaint in this case issued over 2 years after the Authority decided Farmers Home. Accordingly, its reliance on Authority decisions predating Farmers Home to support its claim that it would be unfair to find that its actions violated the Statute in this case is misplaced.
The parties stipulated that the requirements of section 7114(b)(4)(A), (B), and (C) have been met in this case. Accordingly, consistent with the stipulation and based on the Authority's decision in Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, we find that the Respondent was required to furnish the Union with the requested names and home addresses of employees in the bargaining unit represented by the Union. The Respondent's refusal to do so violated section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute.(*)
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Fed