FLRA.gov

U.S. Federal Labor Relations Authority

Search form

37:0682(53)CA - - Navy, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA and NFFE Local 1690 - - 1990 FLRAdec CA - - v37 p682



[ v37 p682 ]
37:0682(53)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


37 zFLRA No. 53

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

U.S DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

(Respondent)

and

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1690, INDEPENDENT

(Charging Party)

9-CA-80354

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 it represents. For the reasons stated below, we find that the Respondent committed the unfair labor practice as alleged.

II. Facts

The Union is the exclusive representative of a unit of the Respondent's non-professional employees. By letter dated May 6, 1988, the Union requested that the Respondent furnish it with the names and home addresses of all bargaining unit employees. Stipulation, Exhibit 2. By letter dated May 20, 1988, the Respondent denied the Union's request. Stipulation, Exhibit 3.

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, para. 9.

III. Positions of the Parties

The Respondent disagrees with the Authority's rationale in its decision on remand in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA 788 (1986), enforced in part and remanded sub nom. United States Department of Agriculture v. FLRA, 836 F.2d 1139 (8th Cir. 1988), vacated and remanded, 109 S. Ct. 831 (1989) (Farmers Home), in which the Authority concluded that section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute entitled the exclusive representative to the names and home addresses of employees in the bargaining unit it represented. The Respondent contends that the disclosure of the requested names and home addresses is prohibited by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, because that release constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552.

The General Counsel contends that the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home is dispositive of the issue in the case. The General Counsel argues that the Respondent's failure to furnish the requested names and home addresses constitutes a violation of section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute.

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 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 also determined that the release of the information is generally required without regard to whether alternative means of communication are available to the requesting union.

From the parties' stipulation, it is evident that the requirements of section 7114(b)(4) have been met in this case. 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 bargaining unit it represents. The Respondent's refusal to do so violated section 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute.(*)

V. Order

Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, the Department of the Navy, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Refusing to furnish, upon request of the National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1690, Independent, the exclusive representative of certain of its employees, the names and home addresses of all employees in the bargaining unit it represents.

(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights assured them by the Statute.

2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Statute:

(a) Furnish the National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1690, Independent, the exclusive representative of certain of its employees, the names and home addresses of all employees in the bargaining unit it represents.

(b) Post at all facilities where bargaining unit employees represented by the National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1690, Independent, are located, copies of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the Commander, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, and they shall be posted in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and other places where notices to employees are customarily posted, and shall be maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

(c) Pursuant to section 2423.30 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, notify the Regional Director, Region IX, Federal Labor Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this Order as to what steps have been taken to comply.

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

AS ORDERED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

AND TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF THE

FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE

WE NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:

WE WILL NOT refuse or fail to furnish, upon request of the National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1690, Independent, the exclusive representative of certain of our employees, the names and home addresses of all employees in the bargaining unit it represents.

WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights assured them by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

WE WILL furnish the National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1690, Independent, the exclusive representative of certain of our employees, the names and home addresses of all employees in the bargaining unit it represents.

__________________________
(Activity)

Dated:_________ By:_____________________

(Signature) (Title)

This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

If employees have any questions concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Regional Director, Region IX, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is: 901 Market Street, Suite 220, San Francisco, California 94103, and whose telephone number is: (415) 995-5000.




FOOTNOTES:
(If blank, the decision does not have footnotes.)
 

*/ We note the Respondent's argument that the Authority ignored Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) Chapter 294, Appendix C, which states that labor organizations should not be furnished employees' home addresses because such disclosure would be an unwarranted intrusion into an employee's personal privacy. However, Appendix C was deleted on March 12, 1985, when Chapter 294 was revised. The revised Chapter contains no statement similar to that which was contained in Appendix C and on which the Respondent relies. Therefore, the Respondent's argument is without merit.