24:0003(1)NG - NFFE Local 1655 and Adjutant General of Illinois -- 1986 FLRAdec NG
[ v24 p3 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
24 FLRA No. 1 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1655 Union and ADJUTANT GENERAL OF ILLINOIS Agency Case No. 0-NG-1198 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE I. Statement of the Case This case is before the Authority because of a negotiability appeal filed by the Union under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and presents an issue concerning the negotiability of the following Union proposal: The Union has a right to all Union members(') home addresses. This will be furnished by the Employer to the Union twice (2) a year, once in January and once in July. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the Union's proposal is within the duty to bargain. II. Positions of the Parties The Agency, in its Statement of Position, contends that release of Union members' home addresses is prohibited under section (b)(6) of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a (1982), and is, therefore, exempt from disclosure under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. The Agency argues that the employees' privacy interest in their home addresses outweighs the necessity of providing that information for the Union's purposes. Additionally, the Agency filed a response to the Authority's request for amicus briefs concerning the issue of disclosure of names and home addresses of unit employees. 51 Fed. Reg. 21,416 (1986). In its response, the Agency contends that the proposal in this case concerning disclosure of home addresses of "Union" members is distinguishable from the request for disclosure of home addresses of "unit" members, which the Second Circuit found the Privacy Act did not prohibit. American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760 v. FLRA, 786 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1986) reversing Social Security Administration, Northeastern Program Service Center, 19 FLRA No. 108 (1985). The Agency argues that some Union members (for example, retirees) may not also be unit members and that it, therefore, may not have the information requested by the Union. The Union contends that its proposal comes under the "routine use" exemption of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b)(3). It argues that the information requested is necessary to fully represent unit employees and that the Agency is obligated to disclose the information under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. III. Analysis and Conclusion In the Decision and Order on Remand in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA No. 101 (1986), we held that the agency was required to furnish the names and home addresses of unit employees to the exclusive representative. After considering the record in that case and amicus submissions filed in response to the Authority's notice in the Federal Register, we concluded that the release of names and home addresses of unit employees to the union is not prohibited by the Privacy Act, is necessary for the union to fulfill its duties under the Statute, and meets the requirements for disclosure under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. Based on the Union's statements and arguments in its Response to the Agency's Statement of Position, we construe the proposal as applying only to Union members who are employees in the bargaining unit exclusively represented by the Union. Since the proposal would require the Agency to provide the Union with the home addresses of employees in the unit, the proposal is not significantly different from the union's request in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth more fully in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, we conclude that the home addresses requested in the Union's proposal are subject to disclosure under section 7114(b)(4), and that the proposal is within the duty to bargain.