Portsmouth Naval Hospital, Portsmouth, Virginia and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 22 (Authority decision, September 18, 1987)

Final FLRA decision. In this supplemental decision, the Authority grants reconsideration of its earlier address disclosure order to consider a timely filed hospital brief, then reaffirms that order. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review by filing a petition in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a).

Plain-English summary

The Authority had originally treated Portsmouth Naval Hospital's brief as late when deciding AFGE Local 22's employee address request. The hospital showed that it had mailed the brief on time, and the Authority found extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. It considered the hospital's privacy and union-need arguments, reviewed its earlier decision, and reaffirmed the disclosure order. The earlier decision is reported at 28 FLRA 377.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Reconsideration under the Authority's rules; employee information under 5 U.S.C. § 7114(b)(4).
• Outcome: Reconsideration granted; prior decision and order reaffirmed.
• Key point: Correcting the briefing error did not change the result of the employee address dispute.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v28 p1007 ]

28:1007(130)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

28 FLRA No. 130

PORTSMOUTH NAVAL HOSPITAL
PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA

Respondent

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 22

Charging Party

Case No. 34-CA-70288.
(28 FLRA No. 60)

SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER

On July 31, 1987, the Authority issued a Decision and Order in this case. As reflected in the Decision, the Respondent's Brief was deemed untimely filed and therefore was not considered. That determination was based on the mistaken belief that the Brief was hand-delivered to the Authority after the due date. The Respondent has filed a Motion for Reconsideration with evidence that the Brief in fact was filed timely by mail. Accordingly, we find, pursuant to section 2429.17 of our Rules and Regulations, that the Respondent has established extraordinary circumstances for granting reconsideration. Therefore, we grant Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration.

In its brief, the Respondent argues that disclosure of employees' home addresses is not permitted under applicable provisions of the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act. The Respondent also argues that even if the data is disclosable, it is not relevant or necessary for the Union to carry out its representation functions.

We have given full consideration to the Respondent's Brief and have reviewed our Decision in this case. After [PAGE] such consideration, we reaffirm our Decision and Order in this matter.

Issued, Washington, D.C., September 18, 1987.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Henry B. Frazier III, Member

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY [ v28 p2 ]