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 p