40:0876(69)CA - - DOI, National Park Service, Washington, DC and IBEW Local 26 - - 1991 FLRAdec CA - - v40 p876
[ v40 p876 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
40 FLRA No. 69
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 Charging Party (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 October 18, 1990, the Union requested the Respondent to furnish it with the "names and [home] addresses of all Kennedy Center employees within the bargaining unit represented by [the Union]." Stipulation, Joint Exhibit 4. The Union stated that "[t]his information is being requested under [section] 7114(b)(4) of [the Statute]." Id.
Since on or about October 23, 1990, and continuing to date, the Respondent has refused to provide the Union with the requested information. The Respondent stated that its position was "not to release information containing employee names and home addresses on the basis that this is a violation of the Privacy Act . . . ." 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. The Respondent asserts that "adequate means of communication exist 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 with unit employees 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. § 552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 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 the employees of the Kennedy Center, in Washington, D.C., National Park Service." 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 of the Kennedy Center, in Washington, D.C., National Park Service." Respondent's Brief 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 Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolis v. NLRB, 721 F.2d 366, 384 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (Wright, J., concurring).
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 emp