The Federal Labor Relations Authority v. Department of the Navy, Naval Resale Activity, Naval Air Station-Memphis Millington, Tennessee

963 F.2d 124
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJuly 29, 1992
Docket91-3450, 91-3510
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 963 F.2d 124 (The Federal Labor Relations Authority v. Department of the Navy, Naval Resale Activity, Naval Air Station-Memphis Millington, Tennessee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The Federal Labor Relations Authority v. Department of the Navy, Naval Resale Activity, Naval Air Station-Memphis Millington, Tennessee, 963 F.2d 124 (6th Cir. 1992).

Opinions

[125]*125ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge.

This matter is before us on an application for enforcement of an order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority filed by that agency, and a petition for review of that order, filed by the Department of the Navy.

The FLRA’s order in Case No. 4-CA-90632, reported at 40 F.L.R.A. (No. 70) 881 (1991), required the Navy to honor the request of a government employees’ union to furnish it, as exclusive representative of certain of the Navy’s employees, the names and home addresses of all employees in the bargaining unit represented by the union.

Resolving the question of whether the order should be enforced involves consideration of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq., the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. As a result of enforcement actions taken by the FLRA, the same question is being litigated in nearly all the circuits, and there is a division in the views taken in the opinions handed down thus far. As of this writing, three circuit courts have denied enforcement and two have enforced similar orders.

We believe the circuit courts that have denied enforcement of orders requiring disclosure of the information have the better side of the argument. Because so much has been written on the subject, the issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve little useful purpose. Accordingly, since we conclude that the public interest will best be served by a speedy resolution of the issue, we will not write, but instead adopt the reasoning found in the majority opinions in FLRA v. United States Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 958 F.2d 503 (2d Cir.1992); FLRA v. United States Dep’t of Navy, 941 F.2d 49 (1st Cir.1991); and FLRA v. Department of the Treasury, 884 F.2d 1446 (D.C.Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1055, 110 S.Ct. 863, 107 L.Ed.2d 947 (1990).

The petition for review is granted and the application for enforcement is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ford Motor Co. v. United States
17 Ct. Int'l Trade 584 (Court of International Trade, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
963 F.2d 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-federal-labor-relations-authority-v-department-of-the-navy-naval-ca6-1992.