24:0600(63)CA - HHS, SSA and AFGE -- 1986 FLRAdec CA



[ v24 p600 ]
24:0600(63)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 24 FLRA No. 63
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 2-CA-50188
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority on exceptions
 filed by the Respondent (Agency).  The General Counsel 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 (Agency) to refuse a request,
 made pursuant to section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, to provide the
 Charging Party (Union) with the names and home addresses of employees of
 the Respondent's Office of Assessment (Field) (FAO) who are included in
 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.  The Union requested the names and home addresses of all of the
 bargaining unit employees who are represented by the Union's FAO
 Council.  The FAO Council acts as an agent for the Union in representing
 FAO employees.  The request was made during the course of midterm
 negotiations between FAO and the AFGE FAO Council concerning the impact
 and implementation of a proposed realignment of the FAOs.  The
 Respondent denied the request on the grounds that it would be "virtually
 impossible" for it to furnish the information within the time provided
 for negotiations, that the information was not relevant or necessary to
 the outcome of the negotiations, and that the request was an impediment
 to good faith bargaining.
 
                 III.  Administrative Law Judge's Decision
 
    The Judge concluded that the Respondent 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,
 upon request, with the names and home addresses of the unit employees
 which it had sought.  In reaching that conclusion, the Judge found that
 disclosure of the names and home addresses of the unit employees to the
 Union was not prohibited by law, that the information was reasonably
 available, and that the information was necessary in order for the Union
 to effectively communicate with and represent all the employees in the
 unit.
 
                       IV.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The parties' positions were set forth in the Respondent's exceptions
 and the General Counsel's opposition.  /*/
 
    In its exceptions, the Respondent essentially disagrees with the
 Judge's findings and conclusions and asserts that it was not obligated
 to furnish the requested information to the Union.  In its opposition,
 the General Counsel argues that the Judge's findings and conclusions are
 supported by a preponderance of the evidence and are consistent with
 law.  The General Counsel therefore urges the Authority to adopt the
 Judge's decision in its entirety.
 
                        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 and in agreement with the Judge in
 this case, we find that the Respondent was required to furnish the Union
 with the names and home addresses of the unit employees sought herein.
 Thus, we conclude that the Respondent's refusal to furnish the requested
 information in this case was in 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 Health and Human Services,
 Social Security Administration, 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, the National Council of SSA Field Assessment
 Locals, the names and home addresses of all Field Assessment Office
 employees in the bargaining unit represented by the National Council of
 SSA Field Assessment Locals.
 
    (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,
 the National Council of SSA Field Assessment Locals, furnish them with
 the names and home addresses of all Field Assessment Office employees in
 the bargaining unit represented by the National Council of SSA Field
 Assessment Locals.
 
    (b) Post at all its field Assessment Office facilities where
 bargaining unit employees represented by the American Federation of
 Government Employees, AFL-CIO, National Council of SSA Field Assessment
 Locals 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 Deputy Commissioner for
 Assessment and Management, 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 or our employees, and its agent, the National Council of
 SSA Field Assessment Locals, the names and home addresses of all Field
 Assessment Office employees in the bargaining unit represented by the
 National Council of SSA Field Assessment Locals.
 
    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, the National Council of SSA Field Assessment Locals, furnish
 them with the names and home addresses of all Field Assessment Office
 employees in the bargaining unit represented by the National Council of
 SSA Field Assessment Locals.
                                       (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-50188
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
    Respondent
 
                                    and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
    Charging Party/Union
 
    Irving L. Becker,
          For the Respondent
 
    Barry Nelson,
          For the Charging Party/Union
 
    Joel Hornstein and
    E. A. Jones,
          For the General Counsel,
          Federal Labor Relations Authority
 
    Before:  ISABELLE R. CAPPELLO
          Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
    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. Section 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 at 5 CFR 2411 et
 seq.
 
    Pursuant to a charge filed by the Union on March 8, 1985 and amended
 on April 25, the Regional Director of Region II, Federal Labor Relations
 Authority (hereinafter, Authority), investigated and, on May 29, 1985
 served the complaint initiating this proceeding.
 
    The complaint alleges that Respondent (also referred to hereinafter
 as SSA) violated Section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by
 refusing to provide the Union with the names and home addresses of
 bargaining unit employees and, thereby, to comply with Section
 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.  /1/
 
    Respondent denies that it has committed any violations of the
 Statute.
 
    On July 15, 1985, in New York City a hearing was held at which the
 parties appeared, adduced documentary evidence, and examined witnesses.
 Briefs were filed by Respondent, on August 28, and by the General
 Counsel, on September 3, pursuant to an order dated August 2, which
 extended the briefing time until September 3, for good cause shown.
 
    On September 4, 1985, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
 To Dismiss based upon three recent Authority decisions -- Farmers Home
 Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 19 FLRA No. 21, 19
 FLRA 195 (July 22, 1985), Defense Mapping Agency, Aerospace Center, St.
 Louis, Missouri, 19 FLRA No. 85, 19 FLRA 675 (August 12, 1985);  and
 Social Security Administration, Northeastern Program Service Center, 19
 FLRA No. 108, 19 FLRA 913 (August 22, 1985).  Respondent alleges that
 all of the legal issues in this case are resolved in the cited cases,
 which present essentially identical factual situations.  The General
 Counsel and the Charging Party/Union filed their separate oppositions to
 the motion on September 16.  Since there are some disputed issues of
 fact which bear upon the issues to be decided herein, it is
 inappropriate to decide this case upon a motion for summary judgment.
 Accordingly, it is denied.
 
    Based upon the record made in this case, my observation of the
 demeanor of the witnesses, and the briefs, I enter the following
 findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommend the entry of the
 following order.
 
                           Findings of Fact /2/
 
    1.  At all times material herein, the Charging Party/Union has been,
 and is now, a labor organization within the meaning of Section
 7103(a)(4) of the Statute.
 
    2.  At all times material herein, Respondent SSA has been, and is
 now, an agency within the meaning of Section 7103(a)(3) of the Statute.
 
    3.  At all times material herein, the following named persons
 occupied the positions set forth below, opposite their names:
 
          Richard Matthews -- Labor Relations Advisor, Social Security
       Administration, Baltimore, Maryland;  and
 
          Vivian Bromley -- Labor Relations Specialist, Social Security
       Security Administration, New York, New York.
 
    4.  At all times material herein, the individuals named above 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.
 
    5.(a) At all times material herein, the Charging Party/Union has
 been, and is now, the certified exclusive representative of a
 consolidated nationwide unit of certain employees of Respondent,
 including all employees employed in the various offices of the
 Respondent's Office of Assessment (Field), hereinafter FAO, excluding
 all management personnel, professional employees, federal employees
 engaged in personnel work in other than a purely clerical capacity,
 guards and supervisors.
 
    (b) On July 11, 1982, SSA and the Charging Party/Union signed a
 National Agreement.
 
    (c) At all times material herein, the Charging Party/Union has
 delegated to the National Council of Field Assessment Locals (FAO
 Council) authority to act as its representative for the purposes of
 collective bargaining for certain of Respondent's employees including
 those employed in the various offices of the Respondent's FAO.  The FAO
 Council's delegation has been recognized by Respondent.
 
    6.  The size of the bargaining unit is unclear.  It was estimated as
 being not more than 500 by FAO Council representatives (TR. 15, 21, 52,
 56 and 129).  Their uncertainty as to the size of the unit they
 represent may be attributed to the fact that there is no contractual
 requirement that Respondent furnish the Council, periodically, with the
 names of those in the unit.  See Jt. Exh. 1.  Respondent's senior labor
 relations specialist dealing with the FAO component, Mr. Matthews,
 estimated that there are at least 1000 in the unit, less about 100
 supervisors.  See TR. 209.  Mr. Matthews seemed quite positive of his
 estimate and is in a better position to know these facts than the
 Council representatives.  Accordingly, I credit his estimate of about
 900 as being closest to the mark.  The unit is a nationwide one, with
 members located in 10 regions and "roughly 40" satellite offices (TR.
 54).  The unit is composed mostly of analysts, some of whom travel on a
 regular basis.
 
    7.  By letter dated November 23, 1984, Respondent notified the FAO
 Council of a proposed realignment of the FAO.  The realignment would
 eliminate positions in each of the 10 FAO regions and affect four to
 five staffs in each region.  It would change the structure of the FAO by
 eliminating two branches and combining their positions into new branches
 along program, rather than job lines.  Satellite offices would remain
 internally unchanged.  About 90 employees would have their jobs
 abolished and might need retraining.  Under the proposed realignment, it
 appeared that several of the regions' employees, in order to keep their
 jobs, would be subject to relocations, either from one building to
 another, as in the Chicago region;  from one city to another, as in the
 San Francisco region;  from one State to another, as in the Atlanta
 region;  and from Manhattan to Queens in the New York City area.  /3/
 The realignment created four new bargaining-unit jobs and affected,
 either directly or indirectly, approximately 300-400 unit employees.
 The realignment did "not alter any FAO responsibilities or workloads."
 See paragraph 4 on page 2 of G.C. Exh. 2.
 
    8.  By letter dated December 3, 1984, the FAO Council, inter alia,
 asked certain questions about the proposed realignment, demanded
 bargaining, and designated Barry Nelson as its chief negotiator.  Mr.
 Nelson holds various positions on the Council, including that of
 Executive Vice President.
 
    9.  By letter dated December 6, 1984, the FAO Council, pursuant to
 Section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, made a request for information which
 included the following:
 
          Name, home address, type of appointment,
       organization/office/branch, work schedule, position number,
       position title, grade and region for each bargaining unit position
       in the Office of Assessment (field) as of October 1, 1983 and
       April 30, 1984 . . . .
 
    See G.C. Exh. 4.  The letter stated that the information requested
 would "assist (the FAO Council) in responding to (Respondent's) proposal
 to reorganize the (FAO) dated November 23, 1984." See G.C. Exh.4.
 
    10.  By letter dated January 3, 1985, Respondent responded to both
 the letters of the FAO Council (see findings 8 and 9, above).  Inter
 alia, Respondent's letter stated that:
 
          We fail to understand the relevancy of the requested
       information in relation to this realignment.  In addition, based
       on existing guidance from the Office of Personnel Management, we
       are not able to provide you with the names and home addresses of
       bargaining unit employees (OALJ-83-85).
 
    See G.C. Exh. 5, page 2.  "OALJ-83-85" is a reference to Defense
 Mapping Agency Aerospace Center, St. Louis, Missouri, Case No.
 7-CA-20482, in which the Authority has subsequently ruled that the
 Privacy Act foreclosed the disclosure to a union of home addresses of
 its bargaining-unit members by the agency, under the particular facts of
 that case.  See 19 FLRA No. 85 (August 12, 1985).
 
    11.  In January 1985, the FAO Council filed an unfair labor practice
 charge based upon the negative response of Respondent to the request for
 information made on December 6, 1984 (see findings 9 and 10, above).
 The charge was subsequently withdrawn, on or about February 19, 1985,
 based on the advice of an Authority agent that the request was too
 broad, in that it sought the information for 1983 and 1984, and that a
 less broad request should be made.
 
    12.(a) In the meanwhile, the negotiations demanded by the FAO Council
 in December 1984, were taking place in New York City.  Karen Reynolds
 substituted for Barry Nelson as the chief negotiator for the union.
 Stanley Kroman and Shraga Rice were the other members of the union
 negotiation team.  The management team consisted of Vivian Bromley, as
 chief negotiator, Richard Matthews, and William Foreman.  A one-day
 briefing, on Tuesday, February 12, 1985, preceded the negotiations which
 began on Wednesday, February 13.
 
    (b) The parties signed off on ground rules on February 12, 1985, the
 day of the briefing.  Deleted, without prejudice, was the following:
 
          It is understood by the parties that the standards of 5 USC
       7114(b)(4) will apply with respects to the Administration
       providing the Union with copies of all necessary and relevant
       information concerning negotiations of this issue.
 
    See R. Exh. 1, page 2, paragraph C.  The Union "felt that, to some
 degree, we already by statute had the protection for information request
 and there was no need to have it in there" (TR. 183).  During the
 negotiations of the ground rules, the Union made no requests for the
 names and home addresses of unit employees.  Ms. Bromley conceded that,
 in other negotiations in which she had participated, the union had not
 made information requests during ground rules negotiations.  At the time
 the negotiations began, the Union's information request for the names,
 offices and home addresses of unit employees was the subject of the
 outstanding unfair labor practice charge described in finding 11, above.
 
    13.  On Wednesday, February 13, 1985, bargaining began. The parties
 spent the better part of this day clarifying the leave status of the
 Union's chief negotiator and determining whether she would receive
 official time for the negotiations.
 
    14.  The period of Thursday through Friday, February 14 and 15, 1985,
 was spent by the parties on housekeeping details and non-controversial
 aspects of negotiation of items that go into a memorandum of
 understanding (MOU), including posting of a copy of the MOU and its
 becoming effective upon signature.
 
    15.  The period of February 16-17, 1985, was a weekend and Monday,
 February 18 was a holiday.  On or about February 19, and as already
 found, the Union determined to withdraw its charge of an unfair labor
 practice based upon Respondent's refusal of January 3 to furnish the
 names, office locations and home addresses of unit employees and to file
 a narrower request, that is for a more limited period of time.  See
 finding 11, above.  In a memorandum dated February 19, the chief
 negotiator for the FAO Council gave a written request for information to
 Respondent's chief negotiator.  The request reads as follows:
 
          Pursuant to 5 USC 7114(b)(4), this constitutes our request for
       relevant and necessary information in order to continue to
       formulate proposals and to otherwise carry out our
       representational functions.  We are hereby requesting that you
       provide us with the names and home addresses of employees
       represented by the FAO Council as of this date.  Please provide
       this information as soon as possible.
 
    See G.C. Exh. 6.  This request was given to Respondent's chief
 negotiator on the afternoon of February 19 or the morning of February
 20.  See TR. 164, 205, 206 and 247.  No one on the Council's negotiating
 team orally amplified upon the need for the information.  Respondent's
 negotiators looked at the request and indicated that the Council would
 not get the information.  See TR. 165 and 270.  Although the written
 request stated the need for the information, Respondent's negotiators
 asked the Union's chief negotiator why she needed it, to which question
 the Council's chief negotiator replied merely that she had been told to
 request the information and asked for a written reply.  /4/ Respondent's
 negotiators told the Council's chief negotiator that "it would be
 virtually impossible" for Respondent to furnish the information sought
 (TR. 228-229), apparently meaning within the period set for bargaining
 by the parties' contract, which is 10 working days, but can be extended
 by mutual consent of the parties.  See Jt. Exh. 1, pages 7 and 8.
 
    16.  By memorandum dated Feburary 20, 1985, Respondent's chief
 negotiator wrote to the Union's chief negotiator as follows:
 
          This is in reply to your information request of February 19,
       1985 regarding your being provided the names and home addresses of
       employees represented by the Field Assessment Office Council.
 
          At this point in the negotiation process I do not find your
       request to be relevant or necessary to the outcome of these
       negotiations.  The fact is that we have already had four days of
       negotiations during which we have exchanged information and
       poroposals (sic.) concerning the implementation and impact of
       placement procedures to be utilized for placement of employees
       under the FAO realignment.
 
          Nothing in either the union's nor management's proposals for
       procedures to place employees is dependent on the union having the
       names and home addresses of these employees.  All proposals
       properly address the situation from a national prospective, ie.
       placing the employees based on positions and current component.
 
          Your February 20, 1985 request for the number of positions to
       be filled in the realigned (sic.) FAO components is a duplicate of
       your request of January 10, 1985.  Management responded to this
       request January 28, 1985.
 
          Your requests, in my view represents an impediment to good
       faith bargaining and I am not furnishing the requested
       information.
 
    See G.C. Exh. 13.  The FAO Council has never received the requested
 information.
 
    17.  At the hearing, the FAO Council's need for the names and home
 addresses was stated to be as follows:
 
    a.  They would assist the FAO Council in formulating proposals and to
 carry out its representational functions, as stated in the written
 request (see finding 15 above) and "to be able to adequately represent
 bargaining unit members in terms of the issues that were at the table"
 (TR. 135).
 
    b.  The FAO Council wanted to be able to identify the training needs
 of unit employees.  As a result of the realignment, as many as 90
 employees would be reassigned to new positions that would have duties
 different from their area of past work experience.  The Council wanted
 to contact employees prior to the realignment to ascertain their work
 experience, so it could have some idea of the amount of training that
 would be needed and, after the realignment, to determine whether the
 employees received adequate training.
 
    c.  The Council believed that certain employees would have to
 relocate as a result of the realignment and change commuting and carpool
 arrangements.  See finding 7, above.  The Council wanted to get feedback
 concerning such a change in their working conditions.
 
    d.  The FAO Council wanted to contact employees to ascertain how many
 would be eligible for discontinued service retirement, which permits an
 employee whose position has been abolished to retire earlier than he or
 she would have under regular civil service retirement rules.  A union
 concern during negotiations was the question of whether it would want to
 incorporate into its proposals something to encourage employees to take
 advantage of this, and thus limit the number of employees impacted by
 the realignment.
 
    e.  The FAO Council wanted to determine how many employees would be
 eligible for the hardship exception to automatic reassignment.  This
 exception permits employees, subject to automatic reassignment under the
 realignment, to request an exemption.  Also, the negotiating team of the
 Council had some idea of the impact the reassignment would have on the
 employees in the New York area where the negotiations were being
 conducted;  but it was not sure of the impact on employees in the other
 nine regions.  Some of the unit employees might look forward to the
 change;  but the FAO Council had no idea whether this was so or not.
 
    f.  Shortly after the negotiations over the realignment began,
 Respondent notified the FAO Council that it intended to close certain
 satellite offices in 1985.  The Council knew that it would want to
 bargain over these office closings.  The negotiations over the office
 closings followed soon after the conclusion of the negotiations over the
 realignment.  It would have been helpful to the Council, in representing
 the employees affected by the office closings, to have been able to
 contact them through their home addresses.  The Council's negotiating
 team never advised the Respondent that this was a reason it wanted the
 information.
 
    g.  Finally, the Council wanted the names and home addresses of unit
 employees in order to police the MOU.  Apparently, the Council never
 explicitly advised Respondent that it wanted the information for this
 reason.  See TR. 109-111 and 221.
 
    h.  Although the negotiations over the realignment of the FAO have
 been concluded, the FAO Council still wants the names and home addresses
 of unit employees for the following reasons.  The information would
 enable the Council to ascertain whether employees received training as
 provided for in the MOU and whether there were any ongoing problems
 associated with training.  The parties discussed that at the bargaining
 table.  Additionally, the Council wanted the information to get feedback
 from employees concerning the application of the MOU.  Finally, the
 information will be helpful in connection with the impending
 negotiations concerning the closing of certain satellite offices.
 
    18.  The FAO Council did not request the names and home addresses of
 unit employees for the purpose of mailing out its newspaper, The
 Government Standard, or to expand its mailing lists.
 
    19.(a) The negotiations over the realignment concluded on February
 27, 1985 with the signing of the NOU.  It included provisions on the
 placement of employees;  hardship exceptions;  30 days written, advance
 notice of reassignments;  furnishing copies of changed, modified, or
 newly developed position descriptions or performance standards to
 employees within 10 days of placement;  training;  relocation allowances
 for employees reassigned outside their commuting area;  honoring
 outstanding leave requests;  and posting copies of the MOU.  Hardship
 exceptions, training, and relocation of employees were discussion topics
 from the outset of negotiations.
 
    (b) The MOU also provided that management would provide the Council
 with a list of employee preferences (concerning placement in FAO
 offices) and service computation dates, and a list of planned placement
 for all employees made pursuant to the FAO realignment.  The Council
 intended to use this information to police the MOU, e.g., to determine
 whether management had taken seniority into consideration in placing
 employees under the realignment.  A member of the management negotiation
 team commented, during the negotiations, that giving this information
 "takes care somewhat of your names and addresses" (TR. 219 and see also
 TR. 220 and 232).  But the Council never agreed that this information
 was to take the place of the names and home addresses sought.
 
    20.  Respondent has access to the names and home addresses of unit
 employees in several documents.
 
    a.  The first is the Employee Record Card, Standard Form 7-B.  The
 Employee Record Card contains such information as the employee's name,
 home address, telephone number and emergency address.  Employees are
 supposed to fill out this card when they go on duty or to a new office,
 and to notify the timekeeper, administrative aide, or manager if their
 address changes.  The immediate supervisor of each employee maintains
 Standard Form 7-B in the employees' SF-7B file within each FAO office.
 The SF-7B file itself is supposed to be retained in a secure location
 (e.g., lockable desk or cabinet) at the immediate supervisory level.
 
    b.  Respondent also maintains the names and home addresses of unit
 employees on Form SSA-4033, the Employee Locator Card.  The Employee
 Locator Card is maintained by the administrative aide or timekeeper in
 each office.  Employees are responsible for keeping the data up to date.
  The SSA Administrative Directive System Guide for this document
 provides, inter alia, that one of the uses made of the Employee Locator
 Record Card is the preparation of "Special listings" for use by "the
 Union." See G.C. Exh. 10, page 3, paragraph VI C.
 
    c.  The names and home addresses of unit employees are also found on
 their payroll stubs, which are also coded with a "Union-Code" (G.C. Exh.
 11).  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Central Payroll
 Office in Washington, D.C. generates the information on payroll stubs
 for SSA.  The timekeeper or administrative aide in each office maintains
 a copy of the payroll stubs.  Additionally, computerized payroll data is
 accessible via the HHS Central Payroll Office.
 
    d.  Finally, the names and home addresses of unit employees are
 contained in the SF 171 (Personal Qualification Statement) of each
 employee which is located in each employees' official personnel folder.
 The latter is usually maintained in the regional city office in each FAO
 region.
 
    21.(a) In addition to the printed formats described in finding 20,
 above, Respondent has an electronic teletype system, called SSADAR,
 which it uses to communicate with its offices, usually on matters that
 must go out to the field on an expedited basis.  SSADAR is not in
 Respondent's satellite offices or field stations.  Clearance from
 Respondent's central office is required to activate the SSADAR system.
 Respondent's Deputy Commissioner for Operations could have given the
 necessary approval based on a telephone request.
 
    (b) Respondent claims that using SSADAR to recover the information
 sought here would not be "practical" and that it would take less time
 just to call "everybody up on phone" (TR. 279).  The evidence was not
 convincing that SSADAR could not be accessed quickly, once necessary
 approval to access was obtained, or that approval would be difficult or
 time consuming to obtain.
 
    22.(a) In order to obtain the names and home addresses of the FAO
 bargaining unit represented by the FAO Council, immediately after the
 February 19 or 20, 1985, request, Mr. Matthews believes that he would
 have had to go to "each individual supervisor and probably 7-B files"
 (TR. 209).  At the time of the February 1985 request, Respondent had
 "maybe 100, 125 individual supervisors out there" (TR. 210 and see also
 TR. 211).  In order to get the information, Respondent would have first
 had to contact the ten regional commissioners.  Mr. Matthews estimated
 that this task could not have been completed before June or July 1985.
 It was not shown that Mr. Matthews made any study or analysis of the
 logistics involved in retrieving names and home addresses of bargaining-
 unit employees;  or that he talked to any supervisors to determine the
 difficulties involved;  or that he talked to anyone in the Payroll
 Office to determine how soon the computer could process the information;
  or that he talked to the management official necessary to obtain
 permission to use the SSADAR system.  No monetary costs for retrieval
 were "looked at" by Respondent (TR. 214).  Mr. Matthews "presume(d)"
 that the retrieval process itself would have been "quite burdensome"
 (TR. 214).  This presumption is based upon too little factual bases to
 be given credence.
 
    (b) Mr. Matthews considered going to HHS's Central Payroll Office for
 the information;  but he ended up not making any request to it, because
 past experience has shown that it takes "an enormous amount of time,"
 perhaps "months" to get information from this source.  (TR. 216).
 
    (c) Because the closing of offices is "a continuous thing that will
 probably take place over the next couple of years . . ." with "people in
 the closed offices moving to other regional offices in other locations,"
 Respondent does not believe that it "could come up with a list (of names
 and home addresses) that would be exact in terms of saying that (it)
 could pinpoint everybody even today and right now" (TR. 221-222).
 
    23.  The FAO Council has the home addresses of its members, which
 apparently number about 150.  (The Council estimated that union
 membership at 30 percent of a 500-size unit).  See finding 6, above.
 The Council established the following present methods of communicating
 with the non-member, unit employees and difficulties therewith, where
 applicable.
 
    a.  The use of union officials on official time.  The collective
 bargaining agreement provides for two national level officers, a local
 president or regional vice-president for each region, and a steward at
 each installation, plus an assistant steward at those installations with
 more than 100 unit employees.  See Jt. Exh. 1, page 82.  All these
 officials get a certain amount of official time to perform
 representation duties.  Some are out of the office and in a travel
 status, on a regular basis, for several days out of a month, during
 which time they are unable to perform representational duties for the
 Council.  Additionally, the Council has experienced difficulty in
 recruiting unit employees to serve as stewards because some do not
 believe that they can successfully combine their official and
 representational duties.  Also, in some instances, only a few unit
 employees in an office belong to the Council.  As a result, the Council
 has had to designate off-site stewards to represent unit employees in
 some offices.  For example, the FAO office in Miami has only four unit
 employees and the steward for that office works in the Atlanta FAO
 office.
 
    b.  Distributing union literature off Respondent's property.  Unit
 employees in the FAO offices have flextime hours;  are not clearly
 identifiable as unit employees;  work in buildings with non-unit
 employees;  and the buildings have more than one entrance and exit.
 These circumstances make distribution of union literature at building
 entrances and exits difficult.  The Council considered use of its
 steward system to hand out leaflets to unit employees coming to and
 leaving work, but decided that it was "just impractical" (TR. 114).
 
    c.  Distributing union literature on Respondent's property.  Under
 the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the Council has the right
 to distribute union publications on Respondent's property.  The
 contractual provision requires that both the Council representatives
 distributing the material, and the employees receiving it, be on
 non-duty time.  In view of the flextime hours being kept, the Council
 representative would have to drop off the material very early or late in
 the working day, to assure that everyone receives it.
 
    d.  Use of Respondent's internal mail service.  By contrast, the
 Council has access to Respondent's internal mail service, but not for
 "mass mailings." See Jt. Exh. 1, page 22.
 
    e.  Use of bulletin boards.  The Council has access to bulletin
 boards in all of Respondent's facilities.  Since they are in pbulic
 areas, management is privy to any union materials placed on them.
 Additionally, in the Dallas FAO office, the Council experienced one
 instance of difficulty in management removing union materials from a
 bulletin board.  It led to the filing of an unfair labor practice dharge
 which was settled.
 
    f.  Union newsletters.  The Council does not have a newsletter.  AFGE
 distributes one entitled The Government Standard.  The Council can use
 the newsletter of locals which, except at Boston, have both unit and
 non-unit employees in them.  However, the Council is dependent upon
 their publication schedules.  It takes two or three weeks to prepare and
 publish a newsletter.
 
    g.  Use of the Federal Telecommunications System (FTS).  The Council
 may use the FTS for the conduct of labor-management relations, under the
 parties' contract.  However, when Council locals have tried to call 5,
 10, 15 or 20 unit employees, at one time, local management has stopped
 the usage as being "just too disruptive" (TR. 116).  During the period
 of the FAO negotiations over the realignment here at issue, the Council
 negotiators were able to contact a maximum of 27 unit employees, to
 obtain feedback concerning what employees knew about changes planned in
 their offices, how relocation might affect them, and the extent to which
 they might need retraining.  The Council's negotiators were limited to
 contacting only those unit employees known to them.
 
    h.  Use of Respondent's photo copy equipment.  The parties' contract
 allows the Council use of this equipment.
 
    i.  Use of Respondent's shuttle.  The parties' contract allows union
 representatives to use this mode of transportation.
 
    j.  Use of the public address system.  The parties' contract allows
 continued usage of this system at those facilities where it was so used
 prior to June 10, 1980.
 
    k.  Non-duty use of meeting facilities.  The parties' contract allows
 such usage with sufficient advance notice and where available and not
 already committed.
 
    l.  Use of office space for confidential discussions between a
 bargaining unit member and a designated union representative.  The
 parties' contract provides that Respondent will make reasonable efforts
 to provide such space, as available.
 
    m.  Flash bulletins.  The FAO Council President once sent out "a type
 of flash bulletin" to bargaining unit employees, but only about half the
 unit employees ever saw it, because of distribution difficulties (TR.
 73-75 and 84).
 
    n.  Introductions.  Under the collective bargaining agreement, new
 employees are either introduced to their union representative or given a
 written statement that the name of their union representative is on the
 union bulletin board.  In the Atlanta regional office, at least, a union
 representative is allowed to address new employees at orientation
 meetings held every two weeks.
 
                        Discussion and Conclusions
 
    The General Counsel has established, by the preponderance of the
 evidence, /5/ that Respondent violated Section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute
 when during bargaining on a management proposal to realign the offices
 of unit employees, it refused to produce the names and home addresses of
 the Charging Party's bargaining unit on the ground that it did not find
 the request to be "relevant or necessary to the outcome of these
 negotiations." See finding 16, above.
 
    Under Section 7114(b)(4), an agency has the duty to furnish "data"
 that is:  (1) not prohibited by law;  (2) is normally maintained by the
 agency in the regular course of business;  (3) is reasonably available;
 (4) is necessary for full and proper discussion, understanding, and
 negotiation of subjects within the scope of collective bargaining;  and
 (5) does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training provided
 for management officials or supervisors relating to collective
 bargaining.
 
    It is undisputed, and clearly established, on this record, that the
 information sought here is "data;" that it is regularly maintained in
 the regular course of Respondent's business;  and that it does not
 pertain to training given to supervisors relating to collective
 bargaining.  See findings 15 and 20, above.  Whether disclosure of the
 information is prohibited by law and is reasonably available and
 necessary are the disputed issues of law;  and a discussion of each
 follows.
 
    1.  The disclosure of the names and home addresses of bargaining-unit
 employees is not prohibited by law, in this case.
 
    Since the complaint in this case was filed, the Authority has issued
 five decisions holding that agencies did not commit unfair labor
 practices when they declined to produce the home addresses of
 bargaining-unit employees sought by their exclusive representatives
 under Section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, because the Privacy Act of 1947
 prohibited such disclosure.  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,
 Virginia, 20 FLRA No.44 (September 30, 1985, hereinafter Norfolk Naval
 Shipyard.
 
    The Privacy Act of 1947, Pub. L. No. 89-487, 80 Stat. 256 (codified
 as amended in 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (1982)), regulates the disclosure of
 information contained in an agency's records within a system of records
 that is retrieved by reference to an individual's name or personal
 identifier.  It is undisputed, and clear that the names and home
 addresses sought here are in such a system.  See finding 20, above.  The
 Privacy Act permits disclosure of information "required" to be released
 under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Pub. L. No. 89-487, 80 Stat.
 256 (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (1982)).  As explicated
 by the Authority in Farmers:
 
          In general, the theory of the FOIA is that Federal government
       records should be disclosed in order to enable the public to
       review the actions of the government.  However, there are also
       exemptions to the general disclosure requirements of the FOIA.
       Under exemption (b)(6) of the FOIA, an agency is allowed, e.g., to
       withhold personnel and medical files and similar files the
       disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted
       invasion of privacy.  In determining whether material may be
       properly withheld in accordance with exemption (b)(6) of the FOIA,
       the Federal courts have struck a balance between the individual's
       privacy interest and the possible adverse or harmful effects on
       the individual which could result from disclosure, on the one
       hand, against the importance of the public's interest in having
       the information made available.  (citing Department of the Air
       Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976)).  /6/
 
    See 19 FLRA at 197.
 
    The Authority has announced that it will use the same test applied by
 the courts in evaluating FOIA request, "i.e., balancing the necessity of
 the data for the union's purposes against the degree of intrusion on the
 individual's privacy interests caused by disclosure of the data"
 (Farmers, 19 FLRA at 197;  and see also Defense Mapping, 19 FLRA at 677;
  Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 19 FLRA at 900;  SSA NEPSC, 19 FLRA at
 915;  and Norfolk Naval Shipyard, 19 FLRA No. 44, at page 3.
 
    The Authority has further announced that it would be guided by a
 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in which a
 union sought the home addresses of unit employees under FOIA.  In this
 decision, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local
 1923 v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, 712 F.2d
 931 (1983, hereinafter AFGE v. HHS), the Fourth Circuit struck the
 balance and ruled against disclosure.  The language guide used by the
 Authority is found at 712 F.2d at 932 and is as follows:
 
          Employees have a strong privacy interest in their home
       addresses.  Disclosure could subject the employees to an unchecked
       barrage of mailings and perhaps personal solicitations, for no
       effective restraints could be placed on the range of uses to which
       the information, once revealed, might be put.  Further, even
       granting that collective bargaining is a matter of grave public
       concern, any benefits flowing from disclosure of the information
       sought would inure primarily to the union, in a proprietary sense,
       rather than to the public at large.  Finally, as the District
       Court noted, alternative means of communication are available to
       the union, such as its bulletin board and indirect distribution
       through the employer.  (footnote omitted).
 
    See Farmers, 19 FLRA at 197-198;  and see also Defense Mapping, 19
 FLRA at 677;  Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 19 FLRA at 901;  SSA NEPSC,
 19 FLRA at 915;  and Norfolk Naval Shipyard, 20 FLRA No. 44, at page 4.
 
    In each of the above-cited Authority decisions, the Authority struck
 the balance in favor of nondisclosure, and noted that the unions in each
 had alternative means of communications with members of the bargaining
 unit.  These means are set forth in footnote 7 to Farmers, as follows:
 
          In this regard, the Union could have communicated with unit
       employees through "desk drops" of information as authorized by the
       parties' collective bargaining agreement;  direct distributions at
       entrances;  meetings in conference rooms provided by management
       under the negotiated agreement;  bulletin boards;  and union
       stewards who had access to unit employees at their workplace.
 
    They are set forth in footnote 6 to Defense Mapping, as follows:
 
          In this regard, the Union could have communicated with unit
       employees, e.g., through the use of bulletin boards;  the
       Respondent's bulletins and newspaper;  meeting space during
       non-duty hours;  Union newspapers distributed in non-security
       areas;  semi-annual membership drives;  and a network of Union
       officers and stewards with access to employees in non-security
       areas.  The extent to which some of these means of communication
       were subject to restrictions, such as the Union's obligation to
       submit advance requests, does not in our opinion detract from our
       finding that the Union had alternative means of communication
       available, expecially as we note the long bargaining history of
       the parties, including matters with regard to means of
       communication.
 
    They are set forth in footnote 5 to Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, as
 follows:
 
          In this regard, the Union could have communicated with unit
       employees, e.g., through the use of its right, pursuant to the
       parties' collective bargaining agreement, to one steward for every
       85 employees;  through access to one-half of all unofficial
       bulletin boards, which are placed in accordance with Union
       recommendations;  through access to the Respondent's weekly
       newspaper;  through its own monthly newspaper and other literature
       which is distributed throughout the Shipyard;  and through its
       holding of monthly meetings on and off the base.  The extent to
       which some of these means of communication were subject to
       restrictions, such as the Respondent's right to approve Union
       entries in the Respondent's newspaper, or the times during which
       distributions may be made, does not in our opinion detract from
       our finding that the Union had alternative means of communication
       available, expecially as we note the established bargaining
       history of the parties, including matters with regard to means of
       communication.
 
    They are set forth in footnote 6 to SSA NEPSC, as follows:
 
          In this regard, the Union could have communicated with unit
       employees, e.g., through the use of open bulletin boards on each
       floor of the Respondent's facilities;  through the distribution of
       its newsletter which is given out on a desk-to-desk basis four
       times a year by the Respondent;  through additional on-site
       distributions of its own material;  and through the use of its
       network of officers and stewards with access to unit employees.
       The extent to which some of these means of communication were
       subject to restrictions, such as the use of the internal mail
       system for mass mailings and the times during which publications
       may be distributed, does not in our opinion detract from our
       finding that the Union had alternative means of communication
       available, especially as we note the established bargaining
       history of the parties, including matters with regard to means of
       communication.
 
    They are set forth in footnote 6 to Norfolk Naval Shipyard, as
 follows:
 
          In this regard, the Union could have communicated with unit
       employees, e.g., through the use of its right, pursuant to the
       parties' collective bargaining agreement:  to meet with new
       employees;  to space for regular meetings;  to Union office space;
        to a steward system;  to exclusive use of bulletin boards located
       in each shop;  and to access to the Respondent's newsletter.
       Further, the record indicates that the Union also has access to
       unit employees through the distribution of its own newsletter to
       each shop at the Respondent's facilities.  The extent to which
       some of these means of communication were subject to restrictions,
       such as the Union's obligation to submit advance requests for
       meeting times, does not in our opinion detract from our finding
       that the Union had alternative means of communication available,
       expecially as we note the long bargaining history of the parties,
       including matters with regard to means of communication.
 
    The similarities between the "alternative means of communication"
 cited in the above footnotes and those in this case are marked.  Compare
 the facts recited in the above footnotes to finding 23, above.
 
    However, the distinctions between the five, above-cited Authority
 cases and this case are also marked.  First of all, the request here was
 made while the exclusive representative of the unit employees was at the
 bargaining table and trying to formulate proposals over a management
 decision to realign their offices.  The realignment could result in unit
 employees being reassigned to a different job.  It could also result in
 some being relocated, even to a different State, and thus having to
 change their home address.  Nothing strikes closer to an employee's
 heart than where he or she must work and what job he or she must
 perform.  Under these circumstances, most if not all employees would
 gladly yield their privacy interests in their present home addresses to
 their exclusive representative, so that their representative could
 strike the best possible bargain on retraining them for their new jobs
 and obtaining maximum relocation allowances for those forced to relocate
 and obtain new home addresses -- items which the Council was bargaining
 about when the Council made the request for the names and home addresses
 of unit employees.  See finding 19, above.  Paraphrasing the guide which
 the Authority intends to follow in weighing disclosure versus
 nondisclosure (AFGE v. HHS), the benefits flowing from disclosure of the
 information sought would inure primarily to the unit employees, and only
 to the Council in that it would allow the Council to represent the
 interests of the unit in a more intelligent and effective manner.  In
 its Norfolk Naval Shipyard decision, the Authority expressly noted that
 the request there was "not in connection with a grievance or any
 specific bargaining proposals." See page 2 of 20 FLRA No.44, emphasis
 supplied.
 
    Secondly, most unit employees are not members of the Council;  and
 their names are apparently unknown to the Council, which thinks the unit
 size is about 500, whereas it is, in fact, about 900 or more.  See
 finding 6, above.  In all but the Norfolk Naval Shipyard decision, it
 was established in each of the Authority decisions ruling in favor of
 nondisclosure that the unions had, at least, been given the names of
 those in the unit.  (In Norfolk Naval Shipyard the union must have had
 the names;  and, in any event it sought only the home addresses).
 Lacking the names of all unit employees severely restricts the Council's
 use of the alternative means of communication available to it, such as
 the use of the FTS and internal mail service, in seeking to represent
 non-members.
 
    And, thirdly, the bargaining-unit employees here involved were
 dispersed throughout the country, rather than in one metropolitan area
 or a single shipyard as was the situation in the five, above-cited
 Authority decisions wherein the Authority found that the balancing test
 favored nondisclosure.  Working in one metropolitan area or a single
 shipyard, a union's network of officers and stewards can much more
 readily reach the unit employees than in the situation here.  Here, the
 short-handed network of stewards, not even knowing the names of all the
 unit employees, would be hard pressed to reach all, to ascertain their
 preferences and needs on bargaining proposals currently under
 negotiation at the time the request for names and home addresses was
 made.
 
    Since the Authority has announced that it will "use a balancing test"
 in each case to weigh disclosure versus nondisclosure, it must intend to
 favor disclosure, under appropriate circumstances.  This case, in my
 judgment, presents that set of circumstances.  /7/
 
    2.  The information sought is reasonably available.
 
    See finding 20, above.  Respondent protests otherwise, and points to
 two facts -- that the request was made "at the mid-point of the
 negotiations;" and that the requests could not be satisfied "practically
 overnight" (R. BR. 13-14).  It is true that the request was so timed;
 that it would take a while to compile the information;  and that Article
 4 of the parties' collective bargaining agreement provides for
 completion of bargaining within 10 days.  However, the contract also
 provides that all time frames under Article 4 may be modified by mutual
 consent.
 
    Although a witness for Respondent testified to the logistical problem
 of obtaining the names and home addresses of the unit employees, he had
 not undertaken any study or analysis of the logistics involved.  Nor had
 he made any actual attempts to contact supervisory personnel to
 determine the difficulties involved in extracting the information from
 files held by them.  Nor had he contacted the Central Payroll Office to
 determine how soon that office's computer could generate the names and
 home addresses sought.  Since the payroll stubs generated by the
 computer bear a "Union Code" (see finding 20 c, above), the computer
 might have been able to accomplish this in a short time.  The Authority
 has just ruled that evidence showing data is not reasonably available
 "falls within the purview of (an agency's) special knowledge relating to
 the data sought," under Section 7114(b)(4).  See U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
 Commission, 20 FLRA No. 35 (1985) and footnote 26 to Administrative Law
 Judge Louis Scalzo's decision, which the Authority adopted.  An agency's
 burden of proff that data is not reasonable available is not met by the
 type of speculative evidence adduced in this case.
 
    3.  The information sought is necessary for full and proper
 discussion, understanding, and negotiation of subjects within the scope
 of collective bargaining.
 
    It is manifest that, in order to frame intelligent bargaining
 proposals, a union must be able to communicate effectively with the
 employees in the unit it represents -- to obtain their views on
 bargaining priorities;  to ascertain their concerns;  and to obtain
 information.  See Internal Revenue Service, Office of the District
 Director, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida, FLRC No. 72A-50,
 2 FLRC 106, 109 (1974), a decision under Executive Order 11491, the
 precursor of the Statute.  And see also a decision under the National
 Labor Relations Act, Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. N.L.R.B.,
 412 F.2d 77, 84 (2d Cir., 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 928 (1969).
 This, and other private sector cases involving labor relations have
 recognized that the names and home addresses of bargaining unit
 employees are necessary for this purpose.  See e.g., United Aircraft
 Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 434 F.2d 1198 1204 (2d Cir.
 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 993 (1971) and Magma Copper Co., 208 NLRB
 329 (1974).
 
    In the instant case, the Council was at the bargaining table
 negotiating over a proposed realignment affecting offices where unit
 employees work.  The realignment could have resulted in the forced
 relocation of unit employees to perform new assignments.  The Council
 requested the names and home addresses of the unit employees in order to
 identify their training needs;  to ascertain their work experience so
 that the Council would have some idea of the amount of training needed;
 to obtain feedback on their commuting and carpool arrangements and how a
 relocation would affect them;  to ascertain how many would be eligible
 for discontinued service retirement so that the Council would know
 whether to seek some agreement to encourage such retirements, and thus
 limit the number of employees impacted by the realignment;  and to
 determine how many would be eligible for the hardship exception to
 automatic reassignments.  This information was necessary to assist the
 Council in continuing to formulate proposals and to set bargaining
 priorities.  While the Council's negotiation team had been able to
 contact 27 employees personally known to members of the team, it had no
 idea of what the other unit employees faced or wanted.  Alternative
 means of communicating with unit employees were ineffective for this
 type of confidential exchange between unit employees and their exclusive
 representative, particularly since the Council could not even identify
 just who the unit employees were, other than those who were Council
 members.  See findings 6 and 23, above.
 
    Under Section 7114(a)(1) of the Statute, the Council has a statutory
 duty to represent and bargain for non-members as well as members.  In
 the case at bar, the Council estimated that only about thirty percent of
 the unit employees belonged to the Council.  Acutally, the percentage
 may be considerably smaller, because the Council's estimate was based
 upon a belief that the unit was only approximately 500 in number, and I
 have credited the testimony of Respondent's witness that, in fact, it
 was about 900 in number.  See finding 6, above.  Private sector cases
 have compelled production of names and home addresses where the
 percentage of union membership far exceeded that percent.  See, e.g.,
 Magma Copper Co., 208 NLRB at 330 where the membership was 60 percent of
 bargaining unit.  With such a low percentage of members, it was
 necessary for the Council to be able to contact non-members in order to
 assess the needs and interests of the bargaining unit as a whole.
 
    Moreover, the necessity for the data has not ceased merely because
 the realignment negotiations have concluded.  The Council still needs
 the names and home addresses to police the agreement reached and to
 prepare for additional negotiations concerning the closing of certain
 FAO satellite offices also impacting upon unit employees, and as to
 which the Council has requested bargaining.
 
    Respondent does not really argue that the information sought was not
 necessary.  Rather, it argues that the Council "just refused or was not
 interested in providing any explanation to the Respondent at any time
 prior to the hearing as to why the information was necessary or
 relevant" (R. BR. 10-11).  Such an explanation is required of a
 requesting union, if only to enable the agency to determine whether the
 Privacy Act prohibits disclosure.  However, a union is not required to
 state, and then restate the obvious.  Here, the parties were in
 negotiations over a management proposal to realign 10 regional offices
 and had already discussed, but not reached agreement on such topics as
 training for reassigned employees, hardship exceptions to relocations
 and reassignments, and discontinued service retirements.  The Council
 made a written request for the information in order "to continue to
 formulate proposals" (see finding 15, above).  What more emplicit reason
 did Respondent really need?  /8/ The fact that the Council's negotiating
 team gave no further, oral explanation does not "bar it" from
 entitlement, as Respondent ultimately agreed to give the Council
 certain, different information, in order to police the agreement.  See
 R. BR. 13 and finding 19 b, above.  This information would come to the
 Council too late for the purpose of formulating proposals and setting
 bargaining priorities.
 
                  Ultimate Findings and Recommended Order
 
    Respondent has committed the unfair labor practice alleged in the
 complaint and thereby violated Sections 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the
 Statute.
 
    Accordingly, and pursuant to 5 CFR Section 2423.29 and 5 U.S.C.
 Section 7118 of the Statute, it is hereby ordered that the Department of
 Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Refusing and failing to furnish, upon request of American
       Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, or its agent, the
       National Council of SSA Field Assessment Locals, the names and
       home addresses of all Field Assessment Office employees
       represented by it.
 
          (b) In any like or related amnner interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their
       rights assured by the Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative actions in order to effectuate the
 pruposes and policies of the Statute:
 
          (a) Upon request of the American Federation of Government
       Employees, AFL-CIO, or its agent, the National Council of SSA
       Field Assessment Locals, furnish the names and home addresses of
       all Field Assessment Office employees represented by it.
 
          (b) Post at its facilities, in each regional office employing
       Field Assessment Office employees constituting the bargaining unit
       represented by the National Counsel of SSA Field Assessment
       Locals, 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 head of the Field Assessment
       Office component of the Social Security Administration, and shall
       be posted and maintained for 60 consecutive days thereafter in
       conspicuous places, including 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 5 CFR Section 2423.30, notify the Regional
       Director, Region II, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 26 Federal
       Plaza, Room 2237, New York, New York 10278, in writing, within 30
       days from the date of this Order as to what steps have been taken
       to comply herewith.
 
                                       /s/ ISABELLE R. CAPPELLO
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  October 9, 1985
    Washington, D.C.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (*) 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 Authority's invitation.  The Union
 contends that the Respondent's submission should not be accepted because
 it was filed one day late.  The Authority accepted and considered some
 amicus submissions that were received shortly after the date set in the
 Authority's Federal Register notice, including the Respondent's amicus
 brief.  However, we note that there is nothing in the disputed
 submission that would alter our decision in this matter.
 
    (1) These statutory provisions are as follows:
 
    Section 7114(b) provides that:
 
          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 reasonable available and necessary for full and
       proper discussion, understnading, 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 . . . .
 
    Section 7116 provides, in pertinent part, that:
 
          (a) For the purposes of this chapter, it shall be an unfair
       labor practice for an agency --
 
          (1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce any employee in the
       exercise by the employee of any right under this chapter;  . . .
 
          (5) to refuse to consult or negotiate in good faith with a
       labor organization as required by this chapter . . . or
 
          (8) to otherwise fail or refuse to comply with any provision of
       this chapter.
 
    (2) The following abbreviations will be used.  "TR" refers to the
 transcript.  "G.C. Exh." refers to the exhibits of the General Counsel,
 "R. Exh." to those the Respondent, and "Jt. Exh." to the Joint Exhibit.
 "G.C. BR." refers to the brief of the General Counsel and "R. BR." to
 that of Respondent.  Corrections to the transcript are appended hereto,
 and are made pursuant to 5 CFR 2423.19(r) and the unopposed motion of
 the General Counsel, which is granted, with a few corrections and
 exceptions as shown in the appendix.
 
    (3) The Council's chief negotiator so testified.  See TR. 131, 141
 and 138.  Mr. Matthews, testified that "(b)asically nobody was going to
 move" (TR. 237).  However, it is undisputed that the memorandum of
 agreement negotiated provided for relocation allowances for employees
 reassigned outside their commuting area.  See G.C. Exh. 13, page 3,
 para. 6.  So some relocations must have been expected.  Accordingly, I
 credit the testimony of the Council's witness.
 
    (4) Ms. Reynolds could not recollect this.  See TR. 271-277 and 280.
 However, Ms. Bromley and Mr. Matthews both so testified and appeared
 positive and truthful.  See TR. 206-208, 217-218, 235, and 279-280.  I
 credit their testimony on this point.
 
    (5) This is statutory burden of proof.  See 5 U.S.C. Section 7118 (7)
 and (8).
 
    (6) In this case, the Supreme Court also emphasized that "disclosure,
 not secrecy, is the dominant objective of the (FOIA) . . . and
 (exemptions to it) must be narrowly construed" (425 U.S. at 361).
 
    (7) Administrative Law Judge William B. Devaney, in Department of
 Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Case No.
 5-CA-50187 (OALJ-85-136) held, on September 18, 1985, that the recent
 Authority decisions, above cited, constrained him to find that the
 Privacy Act prohibited the disclosure of home addresses of unit
 employees.  In that case, the unit was dispersed throughout Northeastern
 Ohio, but not nationwide, as here.  And the request did not come in the
 middle of negotiations over a matter of such strong employee interest,
 as here.  Thus, that case is distinguishable from this, on its own
 particular facts.
 
    (8) To the extent that Council witnesses testified at the hearing
 that they needed the information to police the agreement, I would agree
 that Respondent was not given this reason in time for it to perform the
 balancing test required for Privacy Act considerations.
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                 APPENDIX
 
                          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
 STATUTE
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT refuse or fail to furnish, upon request of the American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, or its agent, the National
 Council of SSA Field Assessment Locals, the names and home addresses of
 all unit employees represented by it.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL, upon request of the American Federation of Government
 Employees, AFL-CIO, or its agent, the National Council of SS