39:0697(57)CA - - DOI, National Park Service and AFGE Local 2015 - - 1991 FLRAdec CA - - v39 p697
[ v39 p697 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
39 FLRA No. 57
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
DECISION AND ORDER
February 19, 1991
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 reasons stated below, we find that the Respondent committed the unfair labor practice as alleged.
The Union is the exclusive representative of a unit of employees employed by the Respondent. By letter dated April 28, 1989, the Union requested the Respondent to "provide the Union with the names and home addresses of all bargaining unit employees represented by [the Union]." Stipulation, Joint Exhibit 4. The Union stated that "[i]n order to effectively communicate with our employees and represent them effectively during negotiations, it is necessary that we are able to contact them in a timely and efficient fashion." Id.
By letter dated May 25, 1989, the Respondent refused to provide the Union with the names and home addresses of unit employees. The Respondent stated that its position was "not to disclose such information because of Privacy Act violations." Stipulation, Joint Exhibit 5.
The parties stipulated that the names and home addresses of bargaining unit 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 for management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining. Stipulation, paragraph 8. The Respondent asserts that there are adequate means of communication for the Union to communicate with bargaining unit employees. Stipulation, paragraph 10. The General Counsel asserts that it is not necessary to determine if alternative means of communication are available in order to reach a decision in this case. Stipulation, paragraph 11.
III. Positions of the Parties
The General Counsel argues that the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St, Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA 788 (1986) (Farmers Home), which was reaffirmed by the Authority in U.S. Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 37 FLRA 515 (1990) (Portsmouth Naval Shipyard), application for enforcement filed sub nom. FLRA v. U.S. Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, No. 90-1949 (1st Cir. Oct. 1, 1990), is dispositive of the issue in the case. In Farmers Home, the Authority concluded that section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute entitled the exclusive representative to the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees. The General Counsel contends that the Respondent's admitted failure to furnish the employees' names and home addresses constitutes a clear violation of section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute.
The Respondent disagrees with the Authority's rationale in its decision in Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The Respondent contends that the release of employees' home addresses is prohibited by law, specifically, certain provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. º 552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. º 552a. The Respondent argues that Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is "in direct conflict" with FLRA v. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, 884 F.2d 1446 (D.C. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 863 (1990) (FLRA v. Department of the Treasury). Respondent's Brief at 1, 2. The Respondent claims that FLRA v. Department of the Treasury "is the governing law in the District of Columbia regarding the non-disclosure of home addresses" of certain of the unit employees at issue in this matter. Id. at 1.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
In Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, we reaffirmed Farmers Home and 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 alternative means of communication are available. We find that resolution of this case does not require consideration of whether alternative means of communication are available. Further, it is evident from the parties' stipulation that the other requirements of section 7114(b)(4)(A), (B), and (C) have been met in this case.
The Respondent contends that the court's decision in FLRA v. Department of the Treasury "is the governing law . . . regarding the non-disclosure of home addresses of the employees" located at its Headquarters Office in Washington, D.C. See id. at 1. To the extent that the Respondent is arguing that the Authority is required to follow FLRA v. Department of the Treasury, we reject that contention. See U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Washington, D.C., 37 FLRA 784, 785 (1990), petition for review filed sub nom. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Washington, D.C. v. FLRA, No. 90-1541 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 16, 1990).
Accordingly, consistent with the parties' 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 names and home addresses of employees in the barg