[ v24 p209 ]
24:0209(27)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
24 FLRA No. 27
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
PORTSMOUTH NAVAL SHIPYARD
PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Respondent
and
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES
COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Case No. 1-CA-40290
DECISION AND ORDER
I. Statement of the Case
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on exceptions
filed by the Respondent (Agency). The General Counsel filed an
opposition to the exceptions. The issue is whether it is an unfair
labor practice under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute (the Statute) for the Respondent to refuse a request, made
pursuant to section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, to provide the Charging
Party (Union) with the names and home addresses of employees in a
bargaining unit which the Union exclusively represents.
In a recent Decision and Order on Remand, Farmers Home Administration
Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA No. 101 (1986) (FHAFO), we
reviewed the Authority's previous decision concerning the release of the
names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees to exclusive
representatives. We concluded that the release of the information 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). We also determined that the release of the
information is generally required without regard to whether alternative
means of communication are available. Consistent with our decision on
remand in FHAFO, we conclude that Respondent's refusal to provide the
Union with the names and home addresses sought in this case violated
section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.
II. Facts
The Union requested the names and home addresses of the unit
employees it represents. The Respondent denied the request on the
ground that the information sought was not available under the Statute
or the parties' negotiated agreement. The Respondent also contended
that the information was not subject to disclosure under the provisions
of the Privacy Act. /1/
III. Administrative Law Judge's Decision
The Judge concluded that the Respondent failed to comply with the
requirements of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute in violation of
section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute when it refused to
provide the Union, upon request, with the names and home addresses of
all unit employees represented by the exclusive representative. In
reaching this conclusion, the Judge found that the home addresses were
necessary and relevant within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4) of the
Statute for the Union to carry out its representational obligations;
that the alternative means of communicating with unit employees which
were available to the Union were not effective; that the disclosure of
home addresses was not prohibited by law or regulation; and that the
Union's need for home addresses in order to effectively communicate with
the employees it represents outweighed the minimal intrusion on employee
privacy rights which would result.
IV. Positions of the Parties
The positions of the parties are set forth in the Respondent's
exceptions and the General Counsel's opposition. /2/
In its exceptions, the Respondent essentially disagrees with the
Judge's findings and conclusions and asserts that it was not obligated
to furnish the requested information to the Union.
In its opposition, the General Counsel argues that the Judge's
findings and conclusions are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence and are consistent with law. The General Counsel therefore
urges the Authority to adopt the Judge's decision in its entirety.
V. Analysis and Conclusion
As noted above, the Authority in the decision on remand in FHAFO
concluded that the release of home addresses of bargaining unit
employees to the exclusive representatives of these employees is not
prohibited by law, is necessary for unions to fulfill their duties under
the Statute, and meets the other requirements of section 7114(b)(4). We
also determined that agencies are required to furnish such information
without regard to whether alternative means of communication are
available. Based on our decision on remand in the FHAFO case and in
agreement with the Judge in this case, we find that the Respondent was
required to furnish the Union with the names and home addresses of the
employees in the bargaining unit. Thus, we conclude that the
Respondent's refusal to furnish the requested information in this case
was in violation of section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
Statute, it is ordered that the Department of the Navy, Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to furnish, upon request by the Federal Employees Metal
Trades Council, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative 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) Upon request by the Federal Employees Metal Trades Council,
AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of its employees, furnish it with
the names and home addresses of employees in the bargaining unit it
represents.
(b) Post at all its facilities where bargaining unit employees
represented by the Federal Employees Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO 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 a senior official of the Department of the Navy,
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and shall be
posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all bulletin boards and other places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to
insure 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 I, Federal Labor
Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply.
Issued, Washington, D.C., November 26, 1986.
Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
Henry B. Frazier III, Member
Jean McKee, Member
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS
AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
OF TITLE
5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish, upon request by the Federal Employees
Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative 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, upon request by the Federal Employees Metal Trades Council,
AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of our employees, furnish it with
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 I, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is:
441 Stuart Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02116 and whose telephone
number is: (617) 223-0920.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
Case No. 1-CA-40290
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, PORTSMOUTH NAVAL
SHIPYARD (PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE)
Respondent
and
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL-CIO
Charging Party
Mr. Thomas F. Wood
Mr. Richard H. Greenberg
For the Respondent
Mr. Stephen Perry
For the Charging Party
Marilyn H. Zuckerman, Esquire
For the General Counsel
Before: GARVIN LEE OLIVER
Administrative Law Judge
DECISION
Statement of the Case
This decision concerns an unfair labor practice complaint issued by
the Regional Director, Region I, Federal Labor Relations Authority,
Boston, Massachusetts against the Department of the Navy, Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire (Respondent), based on an
amended charge filed by the Federal Employees Metal Trades Council,
AFL-CIO (Charging Party or Union). The complaint alleged, in substance,
that Respondent violated sections 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. Section 7101 et
seq. (the Statute), by refusing to furnish to the Union the names and
addresses of bargaining unit employees represented by the Union.
Respondent's answer admitted the jurisdictional allegations as to the
Respondent, Charging Party, and the charge, but denied that the
requested information fell within the scope of section 7114(b)(4) of the
Statute and that it violated the Statute.
A hearing was held in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The Respondent,
Charging Party, and the General Counsel were represented and afforded
full opportunity to be heard, adduce relevant evidence, examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and file post-hearing briefs. The Respondent
and General Counsel, FLRA filed helpful briefs. Based on the entire
record, including my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I
make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations.
Findings of Fact
At all times material, the Union has been recognized as the exclusive
representative of an appropriate unit of Respondent's employees. The
current collective bargaining agreement between the parties became
effective October 15, 1981.
The Request and The Anwser
By letter dated May 17, 1984, the Union requested that the Respondent
furnish it with "a complete listing of all unit employees and their
telephone numbers and current addresses." /3/ Both prior to and
subsequent to the request, Union representatives advised management that
the information was necessary in order to represent all unit employees.
Union representatives explained that the Union needed the information in
order to contact unit employees with active grievances who were on leave
at their homes regarding the processing of their grievances. The Union
also wanted to send all unit employees a monthly Union newsletter which
would "explain general employee benefits, offer insurance premium which
aren't offered by the Federal Government, et cetera."
By letter dated May 24, 1984 Respondent formally replied to the
request. The letter stated, in part, as follows:
The telephone numbers and current addresses of unit employees is
not information available under the provisions of the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute or the current
Agreement between the parties. Furthermore, that information is
not subject to disclosure under the provisions of the Privacy Act
of 1974.
At the present time, your organization receives a semi-annual
eligibility listing of all unit employees. Current addresses and
telephone numbers may be requested from individual employees
during non-duty hours; however, the employees are under no
obligation to release such information.
Availability of Employee Addresses
Respondent maintains the home addresses of employee's in official
personnel folders and on Roladex circular files in the shops and main
office. Such information, along with other personnel information, is
secured at night in locked cabinets or offices. Access to home
addresses and telephone numbers is limited and strictly enforced. Some
employees have from time to time expressed concern to personnel
employees that individuals "that had no business getting it would have
access to their personal information." They have been assured that names
and home addresses would only be released to persons who have a need to
know on an official basis.
Chapter 294 of the Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) sets forth the
instructions of the Office of Personnel Management concerning the
availability of information to the public under the Freedom of
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552. Appendix C to Subchapter 7,
"Guides for Responding to Labor Organization Requests for Names of
Employees and Identifying Information," specifically states:
Agencies should not comply with requests from labor organizations
for lists of home addresses or home telephone numbers of
employees. Official release of this information would be an
unwarranted intrusion into an employee's personal privacy.
See also 5 C.F.R. Part 294, Subpart G - Official Personnel Folder
(1984); FPM Letter 294-6, July 25, 1977. But see FPM Supplement 711-1,
Instruction 18 (August 10, 1978); 45 FR 78415, 78417 (November 25,
1980); 47 FR 16489 (April 16, 1982); 49 FR 36954, 36956 (September 20,
1984) (information may be disclosed to officials of labor organizations
when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive
representation).
Union Difficulty in Contacting Grievants
There are about 130 grievances filed by the Union each month. The
only instance reflected in the record where the Union has been unable to
contact a bargaining unit employee concerning the processing of a
grievance occurred in 1982. Steward Stephen Perry was representing
employee Peter Hamlin. Perry testified that because he did not have
Hamlin's home address he could not contact Hamlin at home and could not
pursue Hamlin's grievance from the second to the third step within the
contractual time frames. It is undisputed that the parties agreement
provides for the extension of the time limits under the grievance
procedure. Such extensions are common. Perry testified that he spoke
with his chief steward, Richard Ian, concerning the possibility of
requesting a waiver of the time limits in Hamlin's grievance, but Ian
refused, saying he wanted to "stick strictly to the time limit" because
the Respondent had extended the time limits so much "that he couldn't
keep his schedule straight". As a result, no waiver was requested
concerning the Hamlin grievance.
Circumstances Relating to Union Access to Employees
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is situated on an island about 275 acres in
size. There are two entrance bridges. Employees enter by cars, buses,
and vans or by foot over four sidewalks. There are parking areas inside
and outside the shipyard.
There are close to 9,000 employees working at the shipyard, about
5,500 of whom are in the bargaining unit of the Charging Party.
Approximately 2,500 bargaining unit members are members of the Union on
dues deduction. The record does not reflect the number of bargaining
unit employees, if any, who are members of the Union but are not on dues
deduction. Employees work three shifts. Most of the bargaining unit
employees work in a controlled industrial area approximately 80 acres in
size.
The Union uses the following means to communicate with bargaining
unit employees:
a. List of bargaining unit employees. Pursuant to Article 35,
Section 1 of the collective bargaining agreement, Respondent furnishes
the Union semiannually an up-to-date list of all unit employees by name,
job/position title, grade, check number, and type of appointment. The
chief spokesman for the Union stated during negotiations for the
agreement that the Union needed the job/position title and type of
appointment information on employees so that the Union could solicit new
members.
b. Bulletin boards. Under Article 35, Section 7 of the agreement,
Respondent provides the Union at least one bulletin board or space on
existing bulletin boards in each shop for posting notices concerning
Union recreational and social activities, elections, and meetings.
Other information can be posted only with Respondent's consent.
Shipyard rules do not permit employees to view the bulletin board on
work time; however, enforcement of this rule varies among the
supervisors, and some supervisors do permit it.
c. New employees' orientation. By Article 5, Section 6 of the
agreement, an appropriate Union representative is provided an
opportunity to meet with all new employees in a shop or code to given
them a brief outline of the Union's function.
d. Officers and stewards. Under the provisions of Article 7 of the
agreement, the Union has three officers who spend 40 hours a week on
official time. The Union also has 17 chief stewards and 55 stewards to
perform representational functions. The ratio is one steward or chief
steward for each 75 employees. The agreement provides that permission
will be secured for an employee-steward visit and the purpose of the
visit will be explained to the appropriate supervisor. This formal
procedure is generally not followed except where there are personality
problems between the steward and supervisor. A steward can generally
approach an employee within his work area for a brief visit, such as to
secure the correct address of a Union member, without special
permission. Employees in the bargaining unit are distinguishable from
non-unit employees, such as supervisors, by the color of the hard hats
they are required to wear. A shop steward would be familiar with almost
all of the employees in his work area even without the hard hats.
Stewards do not receive official time for distribution of literature or
for polling employees.
e. Handbilling. The Union on several occasions in the past has
distributed material relating to important issues to bargaining unit
employees by direct handbilling. Handbilling must be performed during
non-duty hours. If it involved matters of a political nature, the
handbilling has been done off the premises at the entrances while
employees are coming to work. There is no way to distinguish unit
employees from the non-unit employees and supervisors among the
approximately 9,000 employees of the shipyard unless some are personally
recognized by the Union member doing the handbilling. The commotion of
large numbers of employees coming to work and the three shifts make
handbilling of all employees very difficult. Where the issues have
strictly involved the shipyard, handbilling has been performed inside
the shipyard by employees who are off-duty giving literature to
employees who are also off-duty. In both cases, whether the handbilling
was done outside or inside the shipyard, large quantities of the
literature have been left at time clocks and lunch rooms where employees
congregate.
f. Telephone. Union officers are able to use the telephones in the
Union office to contact individual employees by telephone at their work
locations. If the telephone extension is not known, it must be secured
from the personnel office. It is difficult to contact employees working
on a submarine or drydock. There may be two or three telephone
extensions for the 200-400 employees working on a submarine and one
telephone extension for those working in the drydock.
g. Union meetings. The Union and affiliated locals hold meetings
once a month on varying dates. The Union may post notices of these
meetings on bulletin boards. Non-members of the Union do not generally
come to the meetings.
h. Internal mail system. The Union has used the internal mail
system to send documents or letters to management offices concerning
representational matters and to individual employees concerning their
grievances. There is no evidence that it is an established practice for
the Union to use the internal mail system for mass mailings to all
employees.
i. Direct mail. The Union has in its possession the names and
addresses of all of its members. These are obtained from application
forms and dues deduction forms. In the past the Union and Locals have
occasionally used the lists to send out newsletters to members' homes
during election campaigns or to request feedback for contract proposals.
/4/ Ten years ago an insurance company was authorized to use the
mailing list on at least one occasion in an attempt to sell insurance to
Union members. Following complaints from members, additional requests
from the same company were turned down.
The information concerning Union members, including their names,
addresses, and other information, is maintained by the Union in the form
of address cards which are physically located in open trays on top of
file cabinets in the Union office. The address cards are not secured
and are accessible to anyone who has access to the Union office. The
names and addresses of Union members have also recently been added to a
computer which will automatically affix gummed address labels to the
proposed monthly newsletter. The Union wants to add to this computer
file the home addresses of all unit employees who are not Union members
so that they too may receive the newsletter.
Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations
The issue for determination is whether Respondent violated section
7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) of the Statute by refusing to provide the Union
with the home addresses of bargaining unit employees. The General
Counsel claims that (1) the home addresses are presumptively relevant
and necessary information; (2)the Union, in any event, demonstrated
that the information requested was necessary and relevant; (3) the
names and home addresses are disclosable under the Statute
notwithstanding the Privacy Act or Federal Personnel Manual; (4) there
is no obligation for an exclusive representative to prove that it was
not feasible to reach bargaining unit employees through alternative
means; and (5), to the extent relevant, all alternative means of access
are insufficient.
Respondent defends on the basis that (1) the information requested is
not relevant and necessary under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute; (2)
the Charging Party has other adequate means of communicating with
bargaining unit employees; and (3) Respondent is prohibited by law from
releasing employees' home addresses.
As pertinent here, section 7114(b)(4) /5/ of the Statute requires an
agency, upon request, to furnish an exclusive representative with data
which is "necessary for full and proper discussion, understanding and
negotiation of subjects within the scope of collective bargaining." It
is well established that under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute a union
is entitled to receive information necessary to the performance of its
representational responsibilities including negotiations, administration
of the collective bargaining agreement, and the effective evaluation and
processing of grievances.
An exclusive representative is responsible for representing the
interests of all employees in the unit (section 7114(a)(1)) and must
have effective means of communicating with them. Here the Union is
seeking the home addresses of all employees in the unit in order to
contact employees with active grievances and to send all unit employees
a monthly newsletter. The publication of a newsletter is a common means
used by organizations to present information, reports, analyses, and
forecasts to members or other special audiences. Newsletters are also
often used to seek responses or other actions. Such a newsletter can be
a very effective means of communication. Therefore, the home addresses
of bargaining unit employees are relevant in this respect to the Union's
carrying out of its representational obligations and "for full and
proper discussion, understanding and negotiation of subjects within the
scope of collective bargaining."
However, since furnishing the home addresses of employees impinges to
some degree on the personal privacy of employees, it is necessary to
determine whether the Union has other effective means of communicating
with the employees. Cf. Internal Revenue Service, Office of the
District Director, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida, 2
A/SLMR 214, affirmed FLRC No. 72A-50, 2 FLRC 106 (1974). I agree with
the General Counsel that the other means available to the Union are
ineffective for the intended purpose of sending newsletters to all unit
employees. /6/ Dissemination of a newsletter or its contents to all
unit employees by means of bulletin boards, new employee's orientation,
officers and stewards on non-duty time, handbilling on non-duty time,
telephone, and union meetings would be a cumbersome, inefficient, and a
hit or miss proposition in terms of reaching all unit employees. The
record does not reflect that the internal mail system can be used for
mass mailings to all employees. The use of the U.S. mails would be the
most reliable means of reaching all unit employees with a lewsletter.
Therefore, the home addresses of employees are "necessary for full and
proper discussion, understanding and negotiation of subjects within the
scope of collective bargaining."
Section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute requires an agency to furnish data
only "to the extent not prohibited by law". The Freedom of Information
Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552, as amended, provides that information in the
possession of government agencies is available to the public except when
the information is subject to one of the exemptions of the act. For
example, personnel and similar files cannot be released where disclosure
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (5
U.S.C. Section 552(b)(6)). Chapter 294 of the Federal Personnel Manual
sets forth the instructions to all government agencies concerning the
availability of information to the public under the Freedom of
Information Act. Appendix C to Subchapter 7, "Guides for Responding to
Labor Organization Requests for Names of Employees and Identifying
Information," specifically states that agencies should not furnish labor
organizations with employees' home addresses or telephone numbers since
release of such information would constitute an "unwarranted intrusion
into an employee's personal privacy". This instruction is labeled a
"Guide" and must be treated as such. The Office of Personnel Management
has otherwise recognized in publishing notices of its systems of records
that a "routine use" of information in employee personnel records, /7/
including home residences and mailing addresses, is disclosure "to
officials of labor organizations recognized under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71
when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive representation
concerning personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working
conditions." See FPM Supplement 711-1, Instruction 18 (August 10, 1978);
45 FR 78415, 78417 (November 25, 1980); 47 FR 16489 (April 16, 1982);
49 FR 36954, 36956 (September 20, 1984). Therefore, it is concluded
that the disclosure of home addresses is not specifically prohibited by
law or regulation.
Since, as noted, the furnishing of employee home addresses would
impinge to some degree on the employee's rights to privacy, the needs of
a labor organization for data to effectively represent the unit
employees must be balanced against the employee's right to privacy. The
furnishing by the Respondent to the Union of employee home addresses for
representational pruposes would not constitute an unwarranted intrusion
on the privacy of such employees. The Union is not an unknown, outside
organization to such employees. It has a lawful relationship to them.
There is no evidence that the Union would make any improper use of the
home addresses or, in light of the Union's previous bad experience with
outside organizations using their mailing list some years ago, that such
organizations would be given access to the addresses again. The daily
personal mail of most persons brings a steady barrage of unsolicited
flyers, advertisements, and solicitations. Employees may have to spend
a moment or two deciding whether to read the Union's newsletter or to
toss it out along with other unwanted mail. Considering the needs of
the Union to effectively communicate with unit employees, any intrusion
on employees' personal privacy caused by the furnishing of home
addresses to the Union for representational purposes is minimal and not
unwarranted.
Respondent's conduct in refusing to grant the Union's request for the
addresses of unit employees constitutes a failure to comply with section
7114(b)(4) of the Statute in violation of sections 7116(a)(1) and (8)
and a refusal to bargain in good faith with the Union in violation of
sections 7116(a)(1) and (5) of the Statute.
Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is recommended
that the Authority issue the following Order:
ORDER
Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Rules and Regulations of the
Federal Labor Relations Authority and section 7118 of the Statute, the
Authority hereby orders that the Department of the Navy, Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing or failing to furnish upon request of the Federal
Employees Metal Trades Council AFL-CIO, the addresses of all unit
employees.
(b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
assured by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
2. Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
purposes and policies of the Statute.
(a) Upon request, furnish to the Federal Employees Metal Trades
Council, AFL-CIO, the names and addresses of all unit employees.
(b) Post at its facilities at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,
copies of the attached Notice marked "Appendix" on forms to be
furnished by the Authority. Upon receipt of such forms, they
shall be signed by the Commander, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and
shall be posted and maintained by him for 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards
and other places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. The Commander shall take reasonable steps to insure that
such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
(c) Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. section 2423.30 notify the Regional
Director, Region I, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Boston,
Massachusetts, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
/s/ GARVIN LEE OLIVER
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: April 25, 1985
Washington, DC
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
(1) Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a (1982).
(2) When the Authority decided, for reasons discussed more fully in
FHAFO, to review the entire issue of the release of employees' names and
home addresses and invited agencies, unions, and interested persons to
submit amicus briefs addressing the issue, this case was one of those
listed as being under consideration. While the parties in this case did
not submit amicus briefs, the Department of the Navy and the Metal
Trades Department of the AFL-CIO did file amicus briefs outlining their
positions.
(3) The Union has withdrawn its request for the home telephone
numbers
(4) The former recording secretary of the Union testified without
contradiction that the Union solicited comments concerning contract
proposals from Union members, but that he was unaware of any formal
solicitation of comments from non-members; further, the collective
bargaining agreement is subject to ratification only by Union members
(5) Section 7114(b)(4) provides that the "duty of an agency and an
exclusive representative to negotiate in good faith shall include the
obligation --
(4) in the case of an agency, to furnish to the exclusive
representative involved, or its authorized representative, upon
request and, to the extent not porhibited by law, data --
(A) which is normally maintained by the agency in the regular
course of business;
(B) which is reasonably available and necessary for full and
proper discussion, understanding, and negotiation of subjects
within the scope of collective bargaining; and
(C) which does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or
training provided for management officials or supervisors,
relating to collective bargaining(.)"
(6) With respect to the Union's alleged need for all home addresses
in order to contact employees with active grievances, the Union officer
and steward network at the shipyard should normally suffice to obtain
the home addresses of employees with active grievances. This should be
one of the first items of information obtained during the initial
steward contact with a grievant. In those emergency situations where
the information is not available to the Union and it is necessary for a
steward to contact a grievant at home, it could be argued that the
agency would be required to furnish the home address pursuant to section
7114(b)(4) for the effective processing of a grievance.
(7) The official personnel folder of each employee is under the
jurisdiction and control of, and is part of the records of, the Office
of Personnel Management, 5 C.F.R. Section 293.303 (1984).
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO A DECISION AND ORDER OF THE FEDERAL LABOR
RELATIONS
AUTHORITY AND IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICIES OF CHAPTER 71
OF TITLE
5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
RELATIONS
STATUTE
WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
WE WILL NOT refuse or fail to furnish upon request of the Federal
Employees Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO, the addresses of all unit
employees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
WE WILL, upon request, furnish to the Federal Employees Metal Trades
Council, AFL-CIO, the names and addresses of all unit employees.
(Agency or Activity). . .
Dated: . . . By: (Signature) . . .
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 any of its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
Regional Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region I,
whose address is: 441 Stuart Street, 9th Floor, Boston, MA 02116, and
whose telephone number is: (617) 223-0920.