24:0583(62)CA - HHS, SSA, and SSA Field Operations, New York Region and AFGE -- 1986 FLRAdec CA



[ v24 p583 ]
24:0583(62)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 24 FLRA No. 62
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AND 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FIELD OPERATIONS 
 NEW YORK REGION
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 2-CA-50222
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on exceptions
 filed by the Charging Party (Union) to the attached decision of the
 Administration Law Judge.  The issue is whether it is an unfair labor
 practice under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute
 (the Statute) for the Respondent (Agency) to refuse a request, made
 pursuant to section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, to provide the Union with
 the home addresses of employees of the Respondent's New York Regional
 District and Branch Offices who are represented by the Union's Local
 3369 (AFGE Local 3369) as part of a national exclusive unit represented
 by the Union.
 
    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 the Respondent's refusal to provide
 the Union with the home addresses of bargaining unit employees sought in
 this case violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute.
 
                                II.  Facts
 
    The Union is the exclusive representative for many of the
 Respondent's employees, who are grouped in various nationwide bargaining
 units.  AFGE Local 3369, which acts as an agent for the Union in
 representing New York Region employees who work within Areas I, II, III,
 and IX, requested the names and home addresses of all the Respondent's
 New York Regional District and Branch Office bargaining unit employees
 within its jurisdiction.  The Respondent contended that the disclosure
 of home addresses would violate the Privacy Act, /1/ but it offered to
 provide the Union with the names and work addresses of all the unit
 employees represented by AFGE Local 3369.
 
                 III.  Administrative Law Judge's Decision
 
    The Judge concluded that the General Counsel had not established that
 the Respondent failed to comply with section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute
 in violation of section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute, as
 alleged, when it refused to give the Union the home addresses of unit
 employees.  In reaching that conclusion, the Judge found that the strong
 privacy interest of employees in their home addresses outweighed the
 interest of their exclusive representative in disclosure of the
 information.  The Judge also found that with the work addresses of the
 unit employees the Union had been provided with an adequate and
 reasonable alternative means of communicating with those employees.
 
                     IV.  Positions of the Parties /2/
 
    The Union's position was set forth in its exceptions.  The Union
 contends that the Judge misinterpreted the parties' stipulations and
 that sending union mail to employees at their work addresses is not a
 reasonable alternative means of communication.  The Respondent did not
 file a response to the exceptions.
 
                        V.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    As noted above, in our decision on remand in FHAFO we concluded that
 the release of home addresses of bargaining unit employees to the
 exclusive representatives of those 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 unit employees sought herein.  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)8 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 Health and Human Services,
 Social Security Administration and the Social Security Administration
 Field Operations, New York Region, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Refusing to furnish, upon request by the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of its
 employees, and its agent, American Federation of Government Employees,
 Local 3369, AFL-CIO, the names and home addresses of all New York
 Regional District and Branch Office employees in the bargaining unit
 represented by AFGE Local 3369.
 
    (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 American Federation of Government Employees,
 AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of its employees, and its agent,
 American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3369, AFL-CIO,
 furnish them with the names and home addresses of all New York Regional
 District and Branch Office employees in the bargaining unit represented
 by AFGE Local 3369.
 
    (b) Post at all its New York Regional District and Branch Office
 facilities where bargaining unit employees represented by the American
 Federation of Government Employees, Local 3369, 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 Regional Commissioner, New York Region, Social Security
 Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, 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 II, 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., December 18, 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 by the American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive
 representative of our employees, and its agent, American Federation of
 Government Employees, Local 3369, AFL-CIO, the names and home addresses
 of all New York Regional District and Branch Office employees in the
 bargaining unit represented by AFGE Local 3369.
 
    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 American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of our employees, and
 its agent, American Federation of Government Employees, Local 3369,
 AFL-CIO, furnish them with the names and home addresses of all New York
 Regional District and Branch Office employees in the bargaining unit
 represented by AFGE Local 3369.
                                       (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 II, Federal Labor Relations Authority, whose address
 is:  26 Federal Plaza, Room 3700, New York, N.Y. 10278 and whose
 telephone number is:  (212) 264-4934.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Case No. 2-CA-50222
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AND SOCIAL 
 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FIELD OPERATIONS, NEW
 YORK REGION
    Respondent
 
                                    and
 
    AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
    Charging Party/Union
 
    Irving L. Becker and Melvin Steverman,
          For the Respondent
 
    Charles Fahlikman,
          For the Charging Party
 
    E.A. Jones and Susan M. Roche,
          For the General Counsel
          Federal Labor Relations Authority
 
    Before:  ISABELLE R. CAPPELLO
          Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This is a proceeding under Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act
 of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1191, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.
 (1982), commonly known as the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute, and hereinafter referred to as the Statute, and the rules and
 regulations issued thereunder and published to 5 CFR 2411 et seq.
 
    Pursuant to a charge of an unfair labor practice filed on March 26,
 1985, the Regional Director, Region II, of the Federal Labor Relations
 Authority (Authority) investigated and, on May 29, served the complaint
 initiating this proceeding.
 
    The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Sections 7116(a)(1),
 (5) and (8) of the Statute, /3/ by refusing to provide the Charging
 Party with the names and home addresses of bargaining-unit employees
 within the jurisdiction of Local 3369 of the American Federation of
 Government Employees (AFGE).
 
    On July 16, 1985, in New York City, a hearing was held at which the
 parties appeared, submitted a stipulation of facts with exhibits
 (hereinafter referred to as Jt. Exh. 1), and presented a short
 presentation of their legal positions.  The General Counsel also
 submitted a proposed order and notice for entry in this case.  Briefs
 were filed by the Respondent on August 7 and by the General Counsel on
 August 15.  Based upon the stipulated facts and the briefs, I enter the
 following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    1.  The charge herein was filed by the Charging Party on March 26,
 1985, and a copy thereof was served upon the Respondent by certified
 mail on March 27, 1985.
 
    2.  The General Counsel of the Authority, by the Regional Director of
 Region II, acting pursuant to Section 7104(f)(2) of the Statute, and 5
 CFR 2423.9a(4) issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing dated May 29,
 1985.  Respondent, on June 19, 1985, served an Answer to the Complaint
 on the Union and the Regional Director.
 
    3.  At all times material herein, the Charging Party has been, and is
 now, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 7103(a)(4) of
 the Statute.
 
    4(a).  At all times material herein, Department of Health and Human
 Services, Social Security Administration (SSA) has been, and is now, an
 agency within the meaning of Section 7103(a)(3) of the Statute.
 
    (b).  At all times material herein, SSA's Field Operations component,
 New York Region, has been, and is now, a constituent entity within the
 Department of Health and Human Services, SSA, and an agent acting on its
 behalf.
 
    5(a).  At all times material herein, Alex Bussey occupied the
 position of Assistant Regional Commissioner, at SSA's Field Operations,
 New York Region.
 
    (b).  At all times material herein, Peter DiSturco has occupied the
 position of Regional Commissioner at SSA, New York Region.
 
    6.  At all times material herein, the individuals named above in
 paragraph 5, have been, and are now, supervisors or management officials
 as defined in Section 7103(a)(10) and (11), respectively, of the Statute
 and have been, and are now, agents of Respondent acting on its behalf.
 
    7(a).  At all times material herein, the Charging Party has been, and
 is now, the certified exclusive representative of a consolidated
 nationwide unit of certain employees of Respondent, including all
 employees in the District and Branch Offices of SSA in the States of New
 York and New Jersey, excluding all management personnel, professional
 employees, employees engaged in Federal personnel work in other than a
 purely clerical capacity, guards and supervisors.
 
    (b).  At all times material herein, the Charging Party has delegated
 to the National Council of SSA Field Operations Locals (Council)
 authority to act as its representative for purposes of collective
 bargaining for certain of Respondent's employees, and the Council's
 delegation has been recognized by Respondent.
 
    (c).  At all times materials herein, American Federation of
 Government Employees, Local 3369, AFL-CIO (AFGE Local 3369), has acted
 as agent for the Council for the purposes of collective bargaining for
 certain of Respondent's employees in the New York Region, and AFGE Local
 3369's delegation has been recognized by Respondent.
 
    8.  AFGE Local 3369's delegated representational jurisdiction covers
 Areas I, II, III and IX within Respondent's New York Region.  There are
 therein approximately 2400 bargaining unit employees represented by AFGE
 Local 3369, who work in 52 of Respondent's New York Region district
 offices and branch offices.  The size of the district offices and branch
 offices within AFGE Local 3369's jurisdiction range from approximately 8
 employees to approximately 110 employees.
 
    9.  On December 21, 1984, John Riordan, President, AFGE Local 3369,
 requested in a letter to Mr. DiSturco the names and home addresses for
 all bargaining unit employees within the jurisdiction of AFGE Local
 3369.  This information was requested in order to communicate with and
 learn the views of bargaining unit employees so that bargaining
 conducted by AFGE Local 3369 will reflect the views of the unit
 employees.  The information was also requested to monitor compliance
 with the parties' collective bargaining agreement.
 
    10.  On January 21, 1985, Mr. Bussey wrote a letter to Mr. Riordan.
 In paragraph 4 of his letter Mr. Bussey responded to Mr. Riordan's
 December 21, 1984, request by stating that the unit employees' names and
 home addresses were not releasable because this would unduly invade the
 privacy of the employees.  Mr. Bussey referred Mr. Riordan to Federal
 litigation in which another AFGE Local was denied a similar request for
 information.  In tthe alternative Mr. Bussey offered to provide the
 employees' work addresses to Mr. Riordan.
 
    11.  On February 1, 1985, Mr. Riordan wrote a letter to Mr. Bussey.
 In paragraph 3 Mr. Riordan stated that he did want employees' office
 addresses included in the information requested.  In paragraphs 4 and 5
 of the letter Mr. Riordan reiterated his reasons for requesting the
 information, as stated above in finding 9.  Mr. Riordan stated that the
 information requested was clearly releasable and referred Mr. Bussey to
 another unfair labor practice case, Case No. 2-CA-30643, in which an
 Authority Administrative Law Judge ordered the respondent to provide
 employees' names and home addresses to the charging party in that case.
 He also informed Mr. Bussey that his reference to Federal litigation by
 another AFGE Local involved a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
 rather than a request made pursuant to Section 7114(b)(4) of the
 Statute.
 
    12.  On March 15, 1985 Mr. Bussey wrote Mr. Riordan.  Mr. Bussey
 summarized his January 21 letter to Mr. Riordan and also explained that
 subsequent to that correspondence the Respondent received a request for
 a legal opinion regarding the relationship between the Privacy Act, 5
 USC 552a, and the release of information under Section 7114(b)(4) of the
 Statute.  Mr. Bussey stated that the reason for the request of a legal
 opinion was that Respondent's line managers were concerned that they may
 incur legal liability if employees perceived that their rights under the
 Privacy Act had been violated by the release of unauthorized personal
 information.  Mr. Bussey stated that a decision on the release of
 information pursuant to Mr. Riordan's December 21 request would be
 deferred until the Respondent's legal opinion was issued.  Mr. Bussey
 also responded to Mr. Riordan's reference to the Administrative Law
 Judge decision in Case No. 2-CA-30643 by stating that since the decision
 had been appealed, the Respondent would continue to maintain, until
 there is a decision on that appeal, that the release of employees' names
 and home addresses would unduly invade the privacy of the employees.
 Mr. Bussey also explained his view that Respondent's MIS data does not
 include home address information so that it would be extremely
 burdensome and costly to gather this information.  The abbreviation
 "MIS" in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Bussey's letter refers to the
 Respondent's "management information system" which is comprised of
 personnel and personal data on Respondent's employees and clientele.
 Enclosed with Mr. Bussey's correspondence was the name of the office in
 which every unit employee was working.  This then allowed Mr. Riordan to
 identify the work location of every unit employee since the Union
 already possessed the addresses of the offices.
 
    13.  The Charging Party and Respondent are parties to a collective
 bargaining agreement covering the nationwide bargaining unit described
 in finding 7 above.
 
    14(a).  The information requested in the December 21, 1984, request
 is maintained on each employee's Standard Form 7B card and on each
 employee's payroll check stub.  The 7B cards are maintained in each
 employee's 7B Extension File which is located at the district office or
 branch office in which the employee is employed.  A list of the names
 and home addresses could be prepared by a clerical employee in each
 office writing each employee's name and address as it appears on the 7B
 card.  It is estimated that it would take no more than one minute to
 write the name and address for each employee.  An Administrative
 Assistant maintains a copy of each employee's payroll check stub in the
 district or branch office in which they are employed.  A list of the
 employees' names and home addresses could be developed from the
 Administrative Assistant photocopying all pay stubs, while sanitizing by
 covering all information except the employee's name and home address.
 It is estimated that it would take no more than one and one-half minutes
 to photocopy the name and address from each employee's check stub.
 
    (b).  The information requested in the December 21 request is
 normally maintained by Respondent in the regular course of business and
 does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training provided for
 management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining.
 
    15.  The Charging Party requested the names and home addresses of
 bargaining unit employees within the jurisdiction of AFGE Local 3369 in
 order to communicate with and learn the views of the employees so that
 bargaining by AFGE Local 3369 will reflect the views of unit employees
 on such issues as computerization of offices;  office openings, closings
 and relocations;  continuous performance audits of employees;  use of
 medical release forms;  changes in front-end client interviewing
 procedures;  and employees' counseling services.  Employees views may
 pertain to the impact and implementation of Respondent initiated
 on-going and future changes involving these and other issues relating to
 bargaining unit working conditions with regard to which the Charging
 Party has an obligation to fairly represent its bargaining unit members.
  The information was also requested to monitor compliance with the
 parties' collective bargaining agreement referred to in finding 13
 above.  Issues involving contract compliance on which the Charging Party
 may wish to communicate with and obtain the views of unit employees may
 include:  performance audits under Article 21;  health and safety under
 Article 13;  maternity leave under Article 31;  and part-time employment
 under Article 33.  Prior to the formulation of the parties' stipulation
 of facts, the Respondent was never specifically and expressly informed
 by the Charging Party that the above examples constituted the reason for
 the request for unit employees' names and home addresses.
 
    16.  The Charging Party has the names and home addresses for all
 employees who are members of AFGE Local 3369 who wrote their home
 address on the Form 1187 when they made application to join the Union.
 However, some Union members used their office address on the Form 1187
 and others have changed their addresses without notifying the Union.
 About 45 percent of the bargaining unit employees within the
 jurisdiction of AFGE Local 3369 are members of the Union.  Other than
 the above data in its own files, the information sought by the Charging
 Party in the December 21, 1984, request was not available to the
 Charging Party from any other source.  The Charging Party did not have
 any reasonable alternative means of communication with its bargaining
 unit members.  Neither Respondent nor the Charging Party raised or
 addressed the issue of reasonable alternative means of communication
 prior to the formulation of the parties' stipulation of facts.
 
    17.  On or about January 21, 1985, and at all times thereafter
 including March 15, 1985, Respondent, through Mr. Bussey, failed and
 refused to furnish to the Charging Party the requested information
 described in finding 9 above.
 
    (a).  The basis for the refusal was first stated in Mr. Bussey's
 letter to Mr. Riordan dated January 21, 1985.  In this letter, Mr.
 Bussey stated, in pertinent part, that:
 
          Your second letter dated December 21, 1984, requests names and
       addresses of all bargaining unit members under the jurisdiction of
       Local 3369.  If you are requesting home addresses, this
       information is not releasable under the authority cited in your
       request as it would unduly invade the privacy of employees.  In
       this regard, AFGE Local 1923 unsuccessfully sought similar
       information in Federal litigation in 1983.  If you intended to
       request work addresses, as stated in the second paragraph of this
       letter, that information could be furnished.
 
    See Exhibit 3 to the parties Stipulation of Facts, which is Joint
 Exhibit 1 (Jt. Exh. 1).
 
    (b).  The basis was again stated in Mr. Bussey's letter to Mr.
 Riordan of March 15, 1985.  In this letter, Mr. Bussey stated, in
 pertinent part, that:
 
          Subsequent to January 21, 1985, this office received a request
       for a legal opinion regarding the relationship between the Privacy
       Act and the release of information under 5 USC 7114(b)(4).  A part
       of the reason for the requested clarification was the concern by
       line managers of legal liability in the event an employee
       perceived that his/her rights under the Privacy Act had been
       violated if personal information is released without their
       authorization.  Since union officials have often expressed their
       concerns about potential liability in duty to fair representation
       situations, we are sure you can appreciate line management's
       concerns about their potential liability under the Privacy Act.
 
          While we are fully aware of emerging case law regarding 7114
       requests, we believe all interests would be served by obtaining a
       legal opinion regarding the relationship of the two laws.
       Therefore, we have submitted this question for review and
       response. . . .
 
          Regarding your continued request for home addresses, you advise
       this information is clearly releasable based on FLRA Case No.
       2-CA-30643.  The case to which you refer, involving the
       Northeastern Program Service Center, has been appealed.  Until
       there is a decision regarding that appeal, the Social Security
       Administration believes release of such information would unduly
       invade the privacy of employees.  In addition, our MIS data does
       not include home address information, therefore it would be
       extremely burdensome and costly to gather this information.  Since
       the attached listings identify the duty locations of bargaining
       unit members within Local 3369's jurisdiction, such information
       provides the Local access to bargaining unit members.
 
    See Exhibit t to Jt. Exh. 1.
 
    18.  Other than the correspondence referred to in findings 9 through
 12 and 17, above, there were no other communications between Respondent
 and the Charging Party regarding the Charging Party's information
 request of December 21, 1984.
 
    19.  No evidence was adduced as to any problems associated with
 bargaining-unit employees receiving personal mail at their work
 addresses.
 
                        Discussion and Conclucions
 
    The Charging Party/Union is this case sought the names and home
 addresses of bargaining-unit under Section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute
 which provides that:
 
          (b) The duty of an agency and an exclusive representative to
       negotiate in good faith under subsection (a) of this section shall
       include the obligation - . . .
 
          (4) in the case of an agency, to furnish to the exclusive
       representative involved, or its authorized representative, upon
       request and, to the extent not prohibited by law, data --
 
          (A) which is normally maintained by the agency in the regular
       course of business;
 
          (B) which is reasonably available and necessary for full and
       proper discussion, understanding, and negotiation of subjects
       within the scope of collective bargaining;  and
 
          (C) which does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or
       training provided for management officials or supervisors,
       relating to collective bargaining. . . .
 
    The parties here have stipulated that the information sought is
 normally maintained by Respondent in the regular course of business, and
 does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training provided for
 management officials or supervisors relating to collective bargaining.
 See finding 14(b), above.
 
    It is undisputed, and clear that such information constitutes "data"
 within the meaning of the Statute.  And Respondent does not raise an
 issue, in its brief, as to the information being "readily available."
 Based upon finding 14(a), I conclude that it was, indeed, readily
 available.
 
    Since the complaint in this case was filed, the Authority has issued
 a line of decisions setting forth its approach to deciding cases wherein
 unions request management to furnish them with the names and home
 addresses of bargaining-unit employees.  See Farmers Home Administration
 Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 19 FLRA No. 21, 19 FLRA 195 (July
 22, 1985, hereinafter Farmers), petition for review filed sub nom.
 American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3354 v.
 FLRA, No. 85-1493 (D.C. Cir., August 6, 1985);  Defense Mapping Agency
 Aerospace Center, St. Louis, Missouri, 19 FLRA No. 85, 19 FLRA 675
 (August 12, 1985, hereinafter, Defense Mapping);  Philadelphia Naval
 Shipyard, 19 FLRA No. 107, 19 FLRA 899, (August 22, 1985);  Social
 Security Administration Northeastern Program Service Center, 19 FLRA No.
 108, 19 FLRA 913 (August 22, 1985, hereinafter SSA NEPSC);  and
 Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, Norfolk Naval Shipyard,
 Norfolk, Virgina, 20 FLRA No. 44 (September 30, 1985, hereinafter
 Norfolk Naval Shipyard).
 
    In each of these cases the Authority has dismissed the complaints on
 the ground that the Privacy Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 83-579, 88 Stat.
 1896 (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. Section 552a (1982)) prohibited
 the disclosure by law.  In each of these cases, the Authority first
 performed "a balancing test," which weighs the necessity of the data for
 the union's purposes against the degree of intrusion on the individuals'
 privacy interests caused by the disclosure of the data.  See, e.g. SSA
 NEPSC, 19 FLRA at 915.  In each of these cases, the Authority has noted
 the "employees' strong privacy interest in their home addresses." See,
 e.g. SSA NEPSC, ibid.  And, in each, the Authority has noted that the
 Union had alternative means of communicating with the unit employees.
 
    In this case it has been stipulated that the Union did not have any
 reasonable alternative means of communication with the bargaining unit
 employees.  See finding 16, above.  I interpret this stipulation to mean
 that the Union lacked any reasonable alternative means as of the date it
 made its December 21, 1984 request for the names and home addresses of
 unit employees.  However, after the Union made its request, Respondent,
 on January 21, 1985, offered to give to the Union the names and work
 addresses of unit employees.  See finding 10, above.  And, on March 15,
 1985 Resondent gave the Union this information.  See finding 12, above.
 No evidence was offered of any problems connected with employees
 receiving personal mail at their work addresses.  While receiving mail
 at home may be more desirable, from the Union's viewpoint, I cannot
 conclude on this record, that receipt of personal mail at the office
 does not provide the Union with an adequate and reasonable means of
 communicating with all the employees it represents.  Under the line of
 Authority decisions cited above, I am constrained to hold that what the
 Authority perceives to be the strong privacy interest of employees in
 their home addresses, even vis-a-vis their exclusive representative,
 tips the scales in favor of nondisclosure, in this particular case.
 
    In view of this conclusion, other issues raised by the parties need
 not be resolved.
 
                  Ultimate Findings and Recommended Order
 
    The General counsel has not established, by the preponderance of the
 evidence, /4/ that Respondent has committed the unfair labor practices
 alleged in the complaint.
 
    Accordingly, the complaint in this case should be, and it hereby is
 DISMISSED.
 
                                       /s/ ISABELLE R. CAPPELLO
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  November 5, 1985
    Washington, DC
 
 
 
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
    (1) Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a (1982).
 
    (2) When the Authority decided, for reasons discussed more fully 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.  The Union and the Respondent filed
 amicus briefs in response to the Authori