25:0828(67)CA - HHS, SSA, Baltimore, MD and SSA, Great Lakes Program Service Center, Chicag, IL and AFGE -- 1987 FLRAdec CA



[ v25 p828 ]
25:0828(67)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 25 FLRA No. 67
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 
 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND AND SOCIAL SECURITY 
 ADMINISTRATION, GREAT LAKES PROGRAM 
 SERVICE CENTER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 5-CA-60268
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This matter is before the Authority under section 2429.1(a) of the
 Authority's Rules and Regulations based on a stipulation of facts by the
 parties who have agreed that no material issue of fact exists.  The
 General Counsel, the Charging Party (Union), and the Respondent have
 filed briefs with the Authority.
 
    The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated section
 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Federal Service Labor-Management
 Relations Statute (the Statute) by refusing to provide the Union with
 the names and home addresses of all bargaining unit employees located at
 600 W. Madison and 165 N. Canal Street, Chicago, Illinois.  The Union's
 request was made pursuant to section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.  The
 Respondent, relying in part on the Authority's decision in Farmers Home
 Administration, Finance Office, 19 FLRA No. 21 (1985), denied the
 Union's request.  The Respondent asserted that the employees' privacy
 interests in their home addresses outweighed the Union's need to
 communicate with them and that disclosure of the requested information
 would violate the Privacy Act.  The Respondent also asserted that the
 Union had adequate alternative means available for communicating with
 the employees and that management was not convinced that the Union had
 attempted to effectively use all of those alternatives.
 
                       II.  Position of the Parties
 
    In its brief to the Authority, the Respondent repeated its reasons
 noted above for its denial of the Union's request.  Both the General
 Counsel and the Union argued in opposition to the Respondent's position.
 
                      III.  Analysis and Conclusions
 
    In our Decision and Order on Remand, in Farmers Home Administration
 Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA No. 101 (1986) (FHAFO), we
 reviewed the Authority's previous decision, cited by the Respondent,
 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 S