24:0226(28)CA - Air Force, Scott AFB, IL and NAGE, SEIU, Local R7-23 -- 1986 FLRAdec CA
[ v24 p226 ]
24:0226(28)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:
24 FLRA No. 28
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, ILLINOIS
Respondent
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, SEIU, LOCAL R7-23
Charging Party
Case No. 5-CA-40232
DECISION AND ORDER
I. Statement of the Case
This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on exceptions
filed by the General Counsel and the Charging Party (the Union). The
Respondent (Agency) 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 Union with the home addresses of new 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 home addresses sought in this case violated section
7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.
II. Facts
The Union requested the home addresses of all new bargaining unit
employees in order to send them an orientation package. The Respondent
denied the request on the ground that disclosure of the information
would violate the Privacy Act. /1/ However, the Respondent gave the
Union a list of the new employees and their work addresses.
III. The Administrative Law Judge's Decision
The Judge concluded that the Respondent had not failed to comply with
the requirements of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute in violation of
section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) when it refused to provide the Union
with the home addresses of all new unit employees represented by the
Union. The Judge found that the home addresses were reasonably
available to the Respondent and that the Union was seeking the data for
a relevant purpose within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4) of the
Statute. However, the Judge also found that the Respondent's
willingness to have mail addressed to employees at their work addresses
delivered through the Respondent's internal mailing system provided the
Union with an effective alternative means of communicating with the
employees. He therefore concluded that the Union had not established
that the home addresses were necessary within the meaning of section
7114(b)(4) and he recommended that the complaint against the Respondent
be dismissed.
IV. Positions of the Parties
The positions of the parties are set forth in the General Counsel's
and the Union's exceptions and the Respondent's opposition. /2/
In their exceptions, the General Counsel and the Union reiterate
arguments made before the Judge that mailings made to work locations
lack confidentiality and that receipt of such material at the workplace
is disruptive to work procedures. The General Counsel also argues that
the work address information provided the Union was not sufficiently
accurate. In its opposition, the Respondent essentially disagrees with
the arguments that the alternative means of communication lack
confidentiality, would be disruptive and are otherwise inadequate.
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, we find
that the Respondent in this case was required to furnish the Union with
the home addresses of the new employees in the bargaining unit. Thus,
we conclude that the Respondent's refusal to furnish the requested
information in this case constituted a 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 Air Force, Scott Air
Force Base, Illinois, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to furnish, upon request of the National Association of
Government Employees, Local R7-23, the exclusive representative of its
employees, the home addresses of all new 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 National Association of Government Employees,
Local R7-23, the exclusive representative of its employees, furnish it
with the home addresses of new employees in the bargaining unit it
represents.
(b) Post at all its facilities where bargaining unit employees
represented by the National Association of Government Employees, Local
R7-23 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 Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, 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 V, 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.
/s/ Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
/s/ Henry B. Frazier III, Member
/s/ 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 of the National
Association of Government Employees, Local R7-23, the exclusive
representative of our employees, the home addresses of all new 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 National Association of Government
Employees, Local R7-23, the exclusive representative of our employees,
furnish it with the home addresses of all new 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 V, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is:
175 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1359-A, Chicago, IL 60604 and whose
telephone number is: (312) 353-6306.
-------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
Case No. 5-CA-40232
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, ILLINOIS
Respondent
and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, LOCAL R7-23
Charging Party
Major Charles L. Brower, Esquire
For the Respondent
Mark B. Clevenger, Esquire
For the Charging Party
Sandra J. LeBold, 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 Five, Federal Labor Relations Authority,
Chicago, Illinois against the Department of the Air Force, Scott Air
Force Base, Illinois (Respondent), based on an amended charge filed by
the National Association of Government Employees, Local R7-23 (Charging
Party or Union). The complaint alleged, in substance, that Respondent
has refused to furnish to the Union the home addresses of new employees;
that such refusal constitutes a violation of section 7114(b)(4) of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. Section
7101 et seq. (the Statute); and an unfair labor practice in violation
of sections 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.
Respondent's answer denied any violation of the Statute.
A hearing was held at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. The
Respondent, Charging Party, and the General Counsel were represented by
counsel and afforded full opportunity to be heard, adduce relevant
evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and file post-hearing
briefs. Counsel for the Respondent and the General Counsel filed
helpful briefs, and the proposed findings have been adopted in whole or
in substance where found supported by the record as a whole. 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
1. At all times material herein, the Union has been recognized as
the exclusive representative of an appropriate unit of Air Force
employees assigned to Respondent (Tr. 6; Joint Ex. 5).
2. On March 14, 1984, the Respondent conducted a new employee
orientation session (General Counsel's Ex. 1(c) and 1(d)). This was the
first such session that the Respondent had conducted in almost two
years. The Union won the right to be present and distribute literature
at new employee orientation sessions during its 1982 contract
negotiations. /3/ (Tr. 16, 91-92, Joint Ex. 5). This was the first
orientation session since those negotiations (Tr. 16).
3. Carl Denton, Union president, was informed of the session by
Raymond Rush, labor relations specialist, on the morning of March 14,
1984 at approximately 8:20 a.m. Mr. Rush first became aware of the
meeting that same morning. The session had begun at 8:00 a.m. Mr.
Denton rushed over to the meeting, stopping on the way at the Union
office to pick up some copies of the contract and other Union literature
(Tr. 13-14).
4. Mr. Denton arrived at the orientation at about 9:15 a.m. at which
time the orientation participants were on break. Although Mr. Denton
missed the first two segments of the orientation program -- the
introduction from 8:00 to 8:10 a.m. and the staffing and equal
employment opportunity segment which began at 8:10 a.m. -- he was
present when the next scheduled segment -- employee management relations
-- began at 9:35 a.m. (Tr. 14-15; Joint Ex. 4).
5. During this segment, Lorenda Kelch, the presiding management
official, introduced Mr. Denton and permitted him to address the group
of approximately 65 employees. Denton was nervous and ill-prepared due
to the last minute notice. However, he advised the group of the general
purpose of the Union, the location of the Union office, the Union office
telephone number, the names of the officers, that the Union must
represent everyone in the bargaining unit, and that there were Union
stewards available to assist them. He distributed some copies of the
collective bargaining agreement, some NAGE "news-type bulletins," the
local NAGE newspaper, and the national NAGE newspaper. He ran out of
most of the materials because, not being informed of the session in
advance, he did not know how many employees would be present. Later,
during a question and answer session, Ms. Kelch deferred to Denton to
answer a question which had been directed to her. (Tr. 14-18; 43-50).
6. Between July 21, 1982 and March 14, 1984, Respondent hired 166
employees (Joint Ex. 3). Only 66 attended the March 14, 1984
orientation session, although Respondent considered attendance to be
mandatory (Joint Ex. 2; General Counsel's Ex. 2).
7. On March 21, 1984 Mr. Denton sent to Respondent a letter
requesting, among other things, the home addresses and office symbols of
all employees hired since the last previous new employee orientation
session (Joint Ex. 1). An office symbol is an employee's official
business address (Tr. 54). The information was requested "in order to
provide all new employees with a union orientation session and to police
our rights in this regard . . ." (Joint Ex. 1).
8. The Union wanted to communicate with both those who had attended
the orientation session and those who had not (Tr. 21). It wished to
inform new employees who did not attend the session of the existence of
the Union, the identity of Union officers in the various areas, and the
location of the Union office, to let them know that if there were
problems, there was a Union (Tr. 20). It wanted to communicate with the
employees who had attended the session regarding matters which the Union
may have inadequately presented or omitted due to the failure of
Respondent to give the Union advance notice of the session (Tr. 67-68).
Also, the Union desired to communicate concerning matters presented by
management at the orientation session with which it did not agree (Tr.
19-20, 52). The Union wanted to give both groups of new employees a new
employee orientation package. Although the Union had not determined
exactly what it would contain, it would include a copy of the labor
management agreement. The Union had run out of copies of the agreement
at the session. The package would also possibly include information
concerning negotiations and important grievances (Tr. 53-54, 61). Mr.
Denton asserted that some of the material might also possibly be
confidential (Tr. 67).
9. In response to the Union's March 21, 1984 request, Respondent, by
letter of April 4, 1984, replied to the Union's request for home
addresses by stating, ". . . this office is prohibited by applicable
provisions of the Privacy Act from releasing home address(es) of
employees." However, Respondent promised to provide a listing of new
employees by organization under separate cover. Respondent included a
copy of the attendance form filled out by each of the employees who
attended the March 14 orientation session. On each form the employee
listed his "organization and office symbol." (Joint Ex. 2; General
Counsel's Ex. 2).
10. Respondent, by letter of April 17, 1984, provided the Union with
a listing by organization of the employees hired between July 21, 1982
and March 14, 1984. An organizational symbol for each listing was
included in the upper right-hand corner. (Joint Ex. 3).
11. By letter of May 2, 1984 the Union complained that an
unspecified number of the office symbols were incorrect, and that even
if they were correct, "Base Distribution (Respondent's internal
distribution system) would not necessarily deliver the mailings." The
Union stated, "We request that you either provide correct office symbols
for each new employee listed or provide their home address." (Joint Ex.
6A).
12. Following a May 8 interim response (Joint Ex. 6C), Respondent,
by letter of June 22, 1984, informed the Union that although the base
distribution system has always restricted delivery of mail to exclusive
government business, management had been authorized on a test basis to
deliver mass mailings "as long as there is a correct functional address
symbol" (2) that if the address was incorrect, the mail would be
indorsed "undeliverable as addressed" and returned to the sender, and
(3) that if the Union were to inform Respondent of any "specific
instances" of incorrect data, Respondent would correct them (Joint Ex.
6B). The record does not reflect a further Union response.
13. Respondent and the General Counsel are in dispute as to whether
Respondent provided the Union the "office symbols," a business address
or "correct functional address symbol," of each new employee which could
have been used with the internal distribution system. The dispute stems
from the term "office symbol" used in the Union's request. The Union
requested "office symbols" in its March 21, 1984 request. Respondent
furnished a listing of new employees "by organization" and the listing
included organizational symbols. That the organizational symbols may
not be correct as a mailing address is illustrated by the fact that the
organizational symbols do not in every instance match "organization and
office symbol" listed by some employees themselves on the attendance
form of the session. For example, a random check indicates that
Respondent's listing for the "375 ABS Gp" includes Gary L. Hearne and
Herman A. Hockaday, Jr. However, Hearne and Hockaday attended the
session and listed their respective "organization and office symbol" as
"375 ABG/SSRS" and "375 ABG/DAD." Respondent's listing of "MCO CT CQTR"
includes Gladys A. Ronck. Ronck listed her organizational and office
symbol as "HQMAC/TRPRC." Similarly, Oscar Gary Wells supposedly in "MAC
CM MADA" listed "HQMAC/DADD." (Joint Ex. 3; General Counsel's Ex. 2).
The record does not indicate which would be the "correct functional
address symbol" for use of the internal mail system. However, the Union
made no effort to have Respondent correct any noted discrepancies, which
Respondent offered to do, and it is clear under these circumstances that
the correct functional address symbol of each new employee is available
to the Union upon request.
Circumstances Relating to Union Access to New Employees
14. Scott Air Force Base is situated on approximately 2500 acres of
land in southwest Illinois (Tr. 103). Employees work in approximately
100 different buildings (Tr. 30). There are 3,000 - 3,500 civilian
employees working on the base. Of these, 2,400 - 2,500 are bargaining
unit employees (Tr. 29, 62, 104) and 400 are Union members (Tr. 30).
Employees live in various cities and towns covering a wide geographic
area which includes the states of Illinois and Missouri. Some employees
live as far as 50 miles away from the base (Tr. 26).
15. While a majority of civilian employees are located in a central
two-building complex, /4/ large numbers of employees work in buildings
which are some distance from this area. The Union estimated that 40% or
approximately 1000 bargaining unit employees are not located in the
central two-building complex (Tr. 114-115). Respondent estimated that
1200 - 1300 civilian employees work in buildings other than the central
two-building complex /5/ (Tr. 103-104). Buildings 861, 859, 865 and 700
make up Area Two, which is approximately one mile from the central
complex (Tr. 116). The commissary is a ten minute walk from the central
area. The Consolidated Airlift Maintenance Squadron and the Civilian
Engineering Squadron are each two or three blocks from the central
complex (Tr. 117). The Hospital or Medical Squadron is approximately
one-half mile from the central location (Tr. 118). Certain buildings,
notably "DECCO" Headquarters and MAC Headquarters, have secured areas
requiring badges and an escort for entrance. However, these secured
areas have public access lobbies. (Tr. 30, 62-63).
16. The Union has the following means of communicating with
bargaining unit employees.
a. Use of bulletin boards. /6/ There are 50- 80 official bulletin
boards and 25 - 30 other bulletin boards (Tr. 55, 97-98). The Union has
had difficulty acquiring space on only three bulletin boards (Tr.
57-59). The Union asserted that information on the bulletin boards is
often outdated (Tr. 24); however, it is the Union which determines what
information shall appear on the reserved portions of these bulletin
boards (Tr. 55, 97-98). The Union also claimed that it had insufficient
numbers of stewards to maintain the bulletin boards in all buildings;
however, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, the number of
stewards is up to the Union. Finally, the Union claims that employees
seldom look at bulletin boards, and this would not be a reliable way to
reach new employees with the large quantity of information that the
Union wanted to deliver in the orientation package (Tr. 24-25).
Although, the Union could post notices concerning the availability of
the information from the Union office, I agree that bulletin boards
would not be a reliable way to reach employees with a large quantity of
information.
b. Use of Respondent's newspaper and base bulletin to make general
announcements and notices of meetings, picnics, and parties, and for
unofficial announcements. /7/ (Tr. 25, 98-99). Although, the Union
could publish a notice inviting any new employee interested in an
orientation package to call the Union office, these media would not be
able to provide the space the Union wished to provide new employees with
a complete orientation to the Union.
c. Use of intra-base telephone facilities and an office. /8/
Current office telephone numbers of employees are not maintained (Joint
Ex. 2). Calling after hours would also be time-consuming and difficult
due to the lack of home telephone numbers or telephone directories of
the many different communities in which the employees live.
d. Use of designated locations to distribute handbills or other
informational literature, including Union newspapers /9/ (Tr. 30,
101-102).
The Union has never invoked this contractual right. (Tr. 101-102).
However, since the Union was only trying to communicate with 166 new
employees, handbilling of all employees at particular locations would
not be efficient.
e. A listing of bargaining unit employees is to be provided to the
Union once a year upon request /10/ (Tr. 102). The agreement provides
that the list will include names, grades, series and organizational
element. Since August 1982 the Union has requested such a listing only
once (Tr. 103). The total list would not help in reaching new
employees. The Union already knows their identities.
f. Use of officers and stewards. /11/ Pursuant to the collective
bargaining agreement the Union may designate the number of stewards
"reasonably required . . . to assure that each employee is properly
represented, except that no more than one steward may be assigned per
shift to a work area." The Union has approximately 18 officers and 24
stewards on the base. However, only four or five of the stewards are
General Schedule employees. Stewards are not assigned to every shift
and every building. Stewards also have only limited access to employees
working in secured areas. (Tr. 63-64, 100, 108; Respondent's Ex. 2).
g. The Union holds meetings once a month. These meetings are open
to Union members only (Tr. 31-32, 100-101). As noted, Respondent
permits the Union to announce meetings in the base newspaper and
bulletin. Meetings during non-duty hours are not well attended (Tr.
38-31, 100-101). Respondent's "mandatory" orientation session during
duty hours was also not well attended.
h. The Union publishes a Union newsletter when it can afford to do
so, which is not very often. It is mailed to Union members and others
who supply the Union with their addresses (Tr. 31, 99-100; Respondent's
Ex. 2).
17. The Union does not have access to the base's internal mailing
system free of charge. It is restricted to official mail. As noted in
paragraph 13 above, sometime after the information request was made in
March 1984, management, in June 1984, disclosed the existence of a test
whereby mass mailings from unofficial sources could be delivered through
the base distribution system. The effective period for the test was not
stated. It appears that at one time the test was scheduled to last for
one year and would have expired at the end of 1983. It did not (Tr. 27,
66, 69-70). All of the parties, as of the time of the hearing, were
uncertain as to whether the Union could or could not use the internal
mail system pursuant to this test (Tr. 68-70). In its brief Respondent
now takes the unequivocal position that the Union could have used the
internal mail system pursuant to the experimental test. However, I
decline to make such a finding because of the obvious uncertainty of its
availability during the relevant period.
18. Although the Union could not use the internal mailing system
cost-free, it still had access to the employees through the system by
addressing mail to an employee's office symbol, paying the necessary
U.S. postage, and sending it through the U.S. Postal Service which would
ultimately transfer the mail to Respondent for distribution through
Respondent's internal mailing system. (Tr. 65-66; Respondent's brief,
p. 2; Joint Ex. 6A, par. 2, last sentence).
19. Mr. Denton testified that addressing mail to employees' business
addresses on the base would not be an acceptable alternative to mailing
to their home addresses. He testified that he has received reports of
"several occasions" when personal mail has been opened first by
secretaries or other administrative personnel before being received by
the addressees. He has had some of his own mail so opened with a
"sorry" written on it. He also felt that a Union orientation package
might include items of a confidential nature which the Union wouldn't
want management as a whole to know about. Finally, Mr. Denton testified
that such mail might disrupt the work of the base (Tr. 27-28; 60-61).
Availability of Home Addresses
20. Respondent maintains the home addresses of employees in the
regular course of business in official personnel files and in computer
data banks (Tr. 72, 78). Such data does not constitute guidance,
advice, counsel, or training provided for management officials or
supervisors, relating to collective bargaining (Tr. 7).
a. Each official personnel file contains a home address, but there
is no guarantee it is accurate (Tr. 74). The personnel files are used
by six different sections in the Civilian Personnel Office containing
about 30 employees. At any given time approximately 20% (about 640) of
the personnel files are out of the master file, being used by one of the
30 employees (Tr. 73). Assuming that each personnel file were not
signed out of the master file, it would take a civilian personnel office
employee earning from $4.50 to $16.00 per hour approximately two minutes
to manually extract the home address. (Tr. 73-75). Under these
conditions, it would require about five hours and the cost to Respondent
of extracting the home addresses of each of the new bargaining unit
employees would be anywhere from $25.00 to $85.00. The higher figure
would result if higher graded employees were used in order to provide
the information in an extremely short time (Tr. 74). There is no
indication that the Union made time of the essence in its request. If
the file were not in the master file and Respondent were required to
search for the file throughout the personnel office, the time and cost
required could increase significantly (Tr. 73-74).
b. The home addresses are also maintained in Respondent's computer
data base (Tr. 78-80), but in order to extract that information the
following tasks (with costs indicated) must be performed (Tr. 78):
TASK TIME COST PER HOUR TOTAL COST OF TASK
Research Data Base 1-2 hours $6.92-$16.73/hr $6.92-$33.46
Define Computer Program 1-2 hours $150.00 hr $150.00-$300.00
(computer time)
Retrieve Information 30 minutes $150.00 hr $75.00
(computer time)
TOTAL COST $231.92-$408.46
Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
The issue for determination is whether Respondent violated section
7116(a)(1), (5), and (8) by refusing to provide the Union with the home
addresses of new employees. The General Counsel claims that the home
addresses are reasonably available, are necessary to enable the Union to
carry out its representational obligations of providing new employees a
Union orientation package, and there are no effective alternative means
of communicating with the 160 new employees.
Respondent defends on the basis that it complied with the Union's
request, as the Union requested home addresses or office symbols, and it
offered the Union the office symbols. Respondent also contends that the
home addresses are not reasonably available; the Union seeks the home
addresses for purposes not embraced by section 7114(b)(4); and the
Union has at its disposal effective means of communicating with the new
bargaining unit members.
As pertinent here, section 7114(b)(4) /12/ of the Statute requires an
agency, upon request, to furnish an exclusive representative with data
"which is reasonably available and necessary for full and proper
discussion, understanding and negotiation of subjects within the scope
of collective bargaining."
The home addresses of employees are "reasonably available." They are
contained in official personnel files and approximately 80% of the files
are readily available in a master file area. The remainder are in
working areas of the personnel office. If disclosure were required,
management would presumably compile the information from the files
rather than use the more expensive computer retrieval method. Since
time is not of the essence, the record reflects that Respondent could
use lower graded employees for the manual file retrieval for a cost in
the $25-$85 range.
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.
Here the Union wanted to provide new employees with a Union
orientation package, including a copy of the collective bargaining
agreement. In my view, administration of the collective bargaining
agreement includes advising unit employees of their rights under the
agreement. Sending new employees a copy of the agreement is a most
complete way of informing them of their rights. Thus, their addresses
were relevant to the Union's carrying out of its representational
obligations. Therefore, the Union was seeking the information for a
purpose embraced by section 7114(b)(4).
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 new 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). While I agree
with the General Counsel that most of the other means available to the
Union are ineffective for the intended purpose, the record reflects that
Respondent either has, or is willing to, furnish the Union the correct
business addresses of the new employees. Although the Union can not use
Respondent's internal mailing system by itself and on a cost-free basis,
it can still have access to the system by addressing mail to an employee
at his business address or office symbol, paying the necessary U.S
postage, and depositing it in the U.S. mail. The U.S. Postal Service
will ultimately transfer the mail to Respondent, and it will be
delivered to the employee through Respondent's internal mailing system.
The General Counsel argues that it is necessary to send the mail to
an employee's home address in order to preserve its confidentiality and
so as not to disrupt the employee's work. There would be no appreciable
difference in terms of confidentiality between sending sealed envelopes
through the U.S. Postal Service for delivery to an employee's home
address and sending sealed envelopes through the U.S. Postal Service for
ultimate delivery by Respondent's internal mailing system to an office
address. Considering the large number of employees at the base, there
is no basis for concluding that the "several occasions" of personal mail
being opened by secretaries were extensive or other than isolated
occurrences or honest mistakes. It also could hardly be expected that
the contents of a mailing to 160 new employees, a significant percentage
of whom presumably do not belong to the Union, would remain
confidential. With respect to possible disruption of work by mailings
to the office, there is no indication that management would consider the
receipt and review of Union orientation packages by employees to be
disruptive in these circumstances. The Union would be in a good
position to meet any such objection if it took place considering the
alternatives and the fact that Respondent has pointed to this method as
"without doubt the most effective alternative means of communication
available to the Union" (Respondent's Brief, p. 20).
In light of the existence of the foregoing effective means of
communication with new employees for the purpose outline by the Union,
it has not been established that a list of the home addresses of new
employees is "necessary for a full and proper discussion, understanding,
and negotiation of subjects within the scope of collective bargaining."
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Authority issue the following
Order pursuant to 5 C.F.R. Section 2429.29:
ORDER
It is hereby Ordered that the Complaint in Case No. 5-CA-40232 be,
and it hereby is, DISMISSED.
/s/ GARVIN LEE OLIVER
/s/ Administrative Law Judge
Dated: April 9, 1985
Washington, D.C.
--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
(1) Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a (1982).
(2) When the Authority decided, for reasons discussed more fully in
the decision on remand 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 Air Force and the National Association of Government
Employees did file amicus briefs outlining their positions.
(3) Article XXIII, Section 12 of the collective bargaining agreement
provides:
The Union will be permitted to have a maximum of one (1)
representative present during new employee orientations. The
Employer will recognize the Union representative present and
agrees to cover the major features of Title VII. The Union may
distribute its own orientation package, including a copy of the
labor agreement and the representative may be called on to answer
questions directed to him/her. (Joint Ex. 5).
(4) The two buildings which make up the "complex", Headquarters MAC
and Headquarters AFCC, are not connected, but are separated by two or
three blocks and a four-lane highway (Tr. 117).
(5) Respondent did not provide an estimate regarding the number of
bargaining unit employees working in the two-building complex.
Respondent estimated that 2500 of 3000 civilian employees work in a
somewhat larger central area, leaving 500 civilian employees working in
non-centralized areas throughout the base (Tr. 103-104).
(6) Article XIII, Section 13 provides:
The Employer agrees to provide reserved space on Official Bulletin
Boards, 18"X22", for the posting of Union Notices and similar
informational material. Upon written request from the Union, the
Employer will also provide reserved space on such other bulletin
boards which the Employer routinely uses to post notices and other
information to bargaining unit employees regarding personnel
policies, practices and other matters affecting working
conditions. The Union agrees that literature posted or
distributed must not violate any law, the security of the bases,
or contain scurrilous or libelous material. In addition, the
posting or distribution of material relating to partisan political
matters or material which reflects unfairly upon the integrity or
motives of any individual, another employee organization or upon
the Federal Government will not be permitted. All costs incident
to reproduction, preparation, and distribution of Union material
shall be borne by the Union.
(7) Article XIII, Section 16 provides:
The Employer agrees that the Union may use the Towncrier section
of the base newspaper and the Notice Section of the Base Bulletin
to announce general membership meetings and events: such as,
picnics, retirements, or Christmas parties. It is agreed that the
Union shall be solely responsible for the content and accuracy of
such announcements.
(8) Article XXIII, Section 3 provides:
The Employer agrees to permit the officers and representatives of
the Union to utilize intra-base telephone facilities.
Section 10 provides:
Free rent will be provided the Union.
(9) Article VI, Section 13 provides:
The Employer shall permit the union to distribute informational
literature, including Union newspapers, information on membership
in the Union and benefits provided by the Union, in designated
locations, where unit employees are assigned, within the buildings
throughout Scott Air Force Base. The Union agrees that it shall
not distribute any libelous or scurrilous material or violate any
law, applicable regulations or other provisions of this Agreement
in exercising any right under this section. It is agreed by the
Union that any material distributed in accordance with this
section shall be made by employees during their nonwork time and
said distibution shall not interfere with work operation.
(10) Article XXIII, Section 7 provides:
A listing, including the names, grades, series and organizational
element of each bargaining unit employee shall be provided the
Union once every twelve months. Such provision shall be based on
a specific written request from the Union to the Central Civilian
Personnel Office.
(11) Article VI, Section 1 provides, in part:
The employer agrees to recognize the officers of the Union and all
stewards duly designated by the Union. The number of stewards
shall be the number reasonably required in order to assure that
each employee is properly represented, except that no more than
one steward shall be assigned per shift to a work area.
(12) 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 prohibited 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(.)"