United States Marine Corps and Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1482 (Authority decision, January 15, 1988)

Final FLRA decision. The Authority finds that the Marine Corps unlawfully refused to provide bargaining unit employees' names and home addresses to AFGE Local 1482. It orders disclosure and a posted notice. 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

AFGE Local 1482 requested names and home addresses of employees in its bargaining unit at the Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base. The Marine Corps refused, arguing that privacy law barred release and that other ways to contact employees made the information unnecessary. The parties stipulated that the agency normally kept the information and could reasonably provide it. Applying its earlier decision on employee addresses, the Authority rejected the agency's arguments and found an unfair labor practice. It ordered the Marine Corps to provide the information and post a notice for 60 days.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: 5 U.S.C. §§ 7114(b)(4), 7116(a)(1), (5), and (8), and 7118.
• Outcome: Unfair labor practice found; names, addresses, and 60-day notice posting ordered.
• Key point: Privacy objections and alternate communication methods did not remove the duty to furnish the requested addresses under the Authority's governing ruling.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v30 p917 ]

30:0917(103)CA

The decision of the Authority follows:

30 FLRA No. 103

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
WASHINGTON, D.C. AND
MARINE CORPS LOGISTICS BASE
BARSTOW, CALIFORNIA

Respondents

and

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1482, AFL-CIO

Charging Party

Case No. 8-CA-70211

DECISION AND ORDER

I. Statement of the Case

This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority under 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 Respondents violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to provide the Charging Party (the Union), the exclusive representative of a unit of the Respondents' employees, with the names and home addresses of those employees. For the reasons stated below, we find that the Respondents committed the unfair labor practices as alleged.

II. Facts

The Union is the exclusive representative of a unit of the Respondents' employees. By letter dated October 30, 1986, the Union requested that the Respondents provide it with the names and home addresses of the employees in the unit. By letter dated November 26, 1986, the Respondents refused to provide the Union with the requested information. [PAGE]

The parties stipulated that the names and home addresses of the employees are normally maintained by the Respondents in the regular course of business and are reasonably available in the Respondents' personnel and payroll files. The parties also stipulated that the information does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel or training provided for management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining.

III. Positions of the Parties

The Respondents contend that release of the home addresses of employees is prohibited under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act. The Respondents also contend that the information is not relevant or necessary for the Union to carry out its representational duties. The Respondents further maintain that the existence of sufficient alternative means of communication should be considered when determining whether the employees' home addresses are necessary or relevant to a union's representational duties. The Respondents disagree with the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA 788 (1986) (Farmers Home), petition for review filed sub nom. U.S. Department of Agriculture and Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri v. FLRA, No. 86-2579 (8th Cir. Dec. 23, 1986), and assert that the Authority erred in that decision and others.

The General Counsel contends that the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home is controlling in this case. Consequently, the General Counsel argues that the Respondents' admitted failure to furnish the requested names and home addresses constitutes a failure to comply with section 7114(b)(4) and a violation of section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.

IV. Analysis and Conclusions

In the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home, the Authority held that the release of names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees to their exclusive representative 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). The Authority also determined that the release of the information is generally required without regard to whether alternative means of communication are available. [ v30 p2 ]

Based on the parties' stipulation and the Authority's decision on remand in Farmers Home, we reject the Respondents' arguments that the release of the information sought by the Union is prohibited by law and is not necessary. 1 See also United States Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration v. FLRA, Nos. 87-3513(L), 87-3514, 87-3515 (4th Cir. Nov. 25, 1987), affirming Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, 24 FLRA 543 (1986); Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration and Social Security Administration Field Operations, New York Region, 24 FLRA 583 (1986); Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, 24 FLRA 600 (1986).

Accordingly, we conclude that the Respondents were required to provide the Union with the names and homes addresses of the bargaining unit employees under section 7114(b)(4). We further conclude that the Respondents' refusal to provide the Union with the requested information violated 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, the United States Marine Corps, Washington, D.C. and the Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California, shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Refusing to furnish, upon request of the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1482, AFL - CIO, the exclusive representative of certain of its [ v30 p3 ] 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 American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1482, AFL

• CIO, the names and home addresses of all employees in the bargaining unit it
  represents.

(b) Post at its facilities where bargaining unit employees represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1482, 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 the Commanding Officer of the Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California, and shall be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all bulletin boards and places where notices to employees are customarily posted. 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 VIII, 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., January 15, 1988.

Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

Jean McKee, Member

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY [ v30 p4 ]

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 to furnish, upon request of the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1482, AFL - CIO, 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 American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1482, AFL - CIO, 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 VIII, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address is: 350 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, and whose telephone number is: (213) 894-3805. [PAGE]

FOOTNOTES

Footnote 1 The Respondents also argue that the
Authority ignored Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) Chapter 294, Appendix C, which assertedly provides that labor organizations should not be provided with the home addresses of employees because such disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the employees' 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 Respondents rely. Therefore, the Respondents' argument is without merit.