26:0542(64)CA - Air Force District of Washington and AFGE-GAIU Councils of HQUSAF Locals -- 1987 FLRAdec CA



[ v26 p542 ]
26:0542(64)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 26 FLRA No. 64
 
 AIR FORCE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AFGE-GAIU COUNCILS OF HQUSAF
 LOCALS, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 3-CA-60304
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    The Administrative Law Judge issued the attached decision in the
 above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in
 the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending
 that the Respondent be ordered to take appropriate remedial action.  The
 Respondent filed exceptions to the Judge's decision.
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute (the Statute), we have reviewed the rulings of the Judge made at
 the hearing and find that no prejudicial error was committed.  The
 rulings are hereby affirmed.  Upon consideration of the Judge's
 decision, the exceptions, and the entire record, we adopt the Judge's
 findings, conclusions and recommended order, as modified below.
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations
 and section 7118 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations
 Statute the Air Force District of Washington shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
    (a) Refusing to furnish, upon request of the AFGE-GAIU Council of
 HQUSAF Locals, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of a bargaining
 unit of its employees, the names and home addresses of all employees in
 the unit.
 
    (b) In any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or
 coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights assured them by the
 Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    2.  Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute:
 
    (a) Furnish the AFGE-GAIU Council of HQUSAF Locals, AFL-CIO, the
 exclusive representative of a bargaining unit of its employees, the
 names and home addresses of all employees in the unit.
 
    (b) Post at its facilities where bargaining employees represented by
 the AFGE-GAIU Council of HQUSAF Locals, AFL-CIO are located, copies of
 the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by the Authority.  Upon
 receipt of such forms, they shall be signed by the Commanding Officer of
 the Air Force District of Washington 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 ensure 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 III, Federal Labor
 Relations Authority, in writing, within 30 days from the date of this
 Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply herewith.
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., April 7, 1987.
 
                                       /s/ Jerry L. Calhoun
                                       Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       /s/ Henry B. Frazier MD
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       /s/ Jean McKee
                                       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 STATUTE
 
                   WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES THAT:
 
    WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish, upon request of the AFGE-GAIU Council
 of HQUSAF Locals, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of a bargaining
 unit of our employees, the names and home addresses of all employees in
 the bargaining unit.
 
    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 furnish the AFGE-GAIU Council of HQUSAF Locals, AFL-CIO, the
 exclusive representative of a bargaining unit of our employees, the
 names and home addresses of all employees in the bargaining unit.
                                       (Agency or Activity)
 
    Dated:  . . . By:  . . . (Signature)
 
    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 any of its provisions, they may communicate directly with the
 Regional Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Regional
 Director of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, Region III, whose
 address is:  1111 18th Street, NW, 7th Floor (or P.O. Box 33758),
 Washington, DC 20033-0758, and whose telephone number is:  (202)
 653-8500.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -------------------- ALJ$ DECISION FOLLOWS --------------------
 
    Case No. 3-CA-60304
 
 AIR FORCE DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
    Respondent
 
                                    and
 
 AFGE-GAIU COUNCIL OF HQUSAF LOCALS, AFL-CIO
    Charging Party
 
    Lt. Col. Lewis G. Brewer, Esquire
    For the respondent
 
    Mr. Frederick L. Small
    For the Charging Party
 
    Ira Sandron, Esquire
    For the General Counsel, FLRA
 
    Before:  GARVIN LEE OLIVER
    Administrative Law Judge
 
                                 DECISION
 
                           Statement of the Case
 
    This decision concerns an unfair labor practice complaint issued by
 the Regional Director, Region III, Federal Labor Relations Authority,
 Washington, D.C., against the Air Force District of Washington
 (Respondent), based on a charge filed by the AFGE-GAIU Council of HQUSAF
 Locals, AFL-CIO (Charging Party or Union).  The complaint alleged, in
 substance, that Respondent violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of
 the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. section
 7101 et. seq. (the Statute), by refusing to furnish the Union with the
 names and addresses of all employees within the bargaining unit pursuant
 to section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.
 
    Respondent's answer admitted the jurisdictional allegations as to
 Respondent, the Union, and the charge, but denied any violation of the
 Statute.
 
    A hearing was held in Washington, D.C.  The Respondent, Charging
 Party, and the General Counsel were represented and afforded full
 opportunity to be heard, adduce relevant evidence, examine and
 cross-examine witnesses, and file post-hearing briefs.  The Respondent
 and General Counsel filed helpful briefs.  Based on the entire record,
 including my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the
 following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations.
 
                             Findings of Fact
 
    1.  At all times material, the Union has been and remains the
 exclusive representative of Respondent's employees in an appropriate
 unit consisting of all General Schedule and Wage Grade nonsupervisory,
 nonprofessional employees.  On May 12, 1986, the Regional Director,
 FLRA, Region III, issued an Amendment of Certification and Clarification
 of Unit in Cases 3-AC-60001 and 3-CU-60001, respectively.  Employees in
 ten additional organizations located at Bolling Air Force Base,
 Arlington, Virginia, and Alexandria, Virginia were added to the unit.
 This resulted in the addition of approximately 450 employees to an
 existing unit of approximately 1,800 employees.
 
    2.  Unit employees are located at several locations in the
 Washington, D.C. metropolitan area from Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland
 on the east to Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia on the west.  They
 are also located at Bolling Air Force Base, the Pentagon, Baileys
 Crossroads, and Arlington, Virginia.  Employees are spread over a
 geographical area of approximately twelve miles.  The bulk of unit
 employees, approximately 1500, are located at the Pentagon.
 Approximately ninety percent of the approximately 450 new employees
 added to unit were located at Bolling Air Force Base.
 
    3.  Respondent's predecessor and the Union entered into a collective
 bargaining agreement effective for three years from the execution date
 of September 30, 1977.  It was renewed automatically pursuant to its
 terms.  On May 28, 1986, the parties entered into a "Memorandum of
 Understanding for Negotiation of Expired Agreements." No actual
 negotiations on the terms of a new contract have taken place to date.
 Proposals are scheduled for exchange in December 1986.
 
    4.  Edward N. Giddings is the Commander of Respondent and Tom Conner
 is Respondent's Labor Relations Officer at its Washington, D.C. location
 (G.C. Exh. No. 1(f), par. 4;  G.c. Exh. 1(g), par. 1) Prior to April 10,
 1986 Respondent's headquarters was located at Bolling Air Force Base,
 District of Columbia (G.C. Exh. 5, 6).  As of April 10, 1986 Respondent
 was using a Washington, D.C. 20330-6420 address which, from later
 correspondence, appears to be located at the Pentagon (G.C. Exh. 1(a).
 
    5.  By letter dated April 9, 1986 Union president Frederick L. Small
 proposed an additional agenda for a scheduled monthly meeting between
 the parties in view of the recent expansion of the bargaining unit.  He
 requested a list of all bargaining unit employees and their home
 addresses.  By letter dated April 11, 1986, Mr. Small also requested the
 names and home addresses of fourteen additional employees who had been
 placed under Respondent for personnel servicing as of April 1, 1986.
 
    6.  Union president Small advised Respondent's labor relations
 officer, Tom Conner, on April 16, 1986 that with the accretion of
 bargaining unit employees the Union needed the home addresses in order
 to communicate with bargaining unit members.
 
    7.  The Union requested the names and home addresses for the primary
 purpose of using them to communicate with the bargaining unit members it
 represents.  Union president Small has also considered using the home
 addresses to recruit new Union members.
 
    8.  By letter dated April 22, 1986 Respondent, by its agent Tom
 Conner, denied the Union's request for the home addresses of all unit
 employees.  Respondent stated, in part, as follows:
 
          In balancing the employees' right to privacy against the public
       interest in disclosure, the Employer must respectfully deny the
       Union's request for home addresses.  Employees have a strong
       privacy interest in their home addresses.  Disclosure could
       subject the employee to an unchecked barrage of mailings and
       perhaps personal solicitations, for no effective restraints can be
       placed on the range of uses to which the information, once
       revealed might be put.  In arriving at such conclusion, it is
       noted that the Union had not indicated why the information is
       necessary to the fulfillment of its representational obligations.
       Additionally, the Union has not indicated how the addresses will
       be protected from unauthorized use/release.  Moreover, Local 1092
       was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative on 7
       February 1972 and long standing established alternative means of
       communicating directly with unit employees have clearly been
       adequate and effective.  In this regard, the Union is able to
       communicate with unit employees through the use of reserved union
       bulletin board space (see MOA, Article 21, Sections 6 and 7),
       through the nonduty hour use of meeting facilities (see MOA,
       Article 21, Section 4);  through the use of a weekly information
       bulletin (see MOA Article 21, Section 1), through the use of desk
       drops (see MOA, Article 3, Section 4);  through on-site
       distribution of material during nonduty time of the participants
       (see MOA Article 3, Section 4), and through the use of its network
       of officers and stewards with access to unit employees (see MOA,
       Article 4, Sections 3 and 4).
 
    9.  The parties stipulated that the information requested by the
 Union is normally maintained by Respondent in the regular course of
 business and does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel, or training
 for managemant officials or supervisors relating to collective
 bargaining, and I so find.  (Tr. 7).
 
    10.  Respondent does not have a complete list of the names and home
 addresses of bargaining unit employees.  The Civilian Payroll and
 Account System, Randolph Air Force Base Texas maintains the home
 addresses of all of Respondent's employees, about 3,900, but not whether
 they are in or out of the bargaining unit.  Respondent maintains a
 separate list of bargaining unit employees, without their home
 addresses.  In order to compile the home addresses of bargaining unit
 members a computer program would have to be written which would extract
 that information from the two separate lists.  It would take a computer
 programmer one or two days to design such a program.  Respondent could
 also compile the information manually by having a clerical employee
 check and reconcile the list of bargaining unit employees (totaling
 about 2250 to 2500) against the list of names and addresses of all
 employees (totaling approximately 3,900).
 
    11.  The Union has the following existing means of communicating with
 bargaining unit employees.
 
          a.  List of bargaining unit members.  In March 1986 the Union
       was provided a list of the names and duty station abbreviations of
       bargaining unit employees.  The duty location was designated by a
       four-letter code or abbreviation.  Telephone numbers were not
       provided.  The Union was provided a description of some, but not
       all, of the duty locations corresponding to the abbreviations.
       The Union did not request Respondent for an explanation of the
       unidentified abbreviations.
 
          b.  Union use of weekly information bulletin.  Under Article
       21, Section 1 of the agreement the Union is allotted up to one
       half page of each bulletin for appropriate Union correspondence,
       notices, and other matters concerning the relationship between
       unit employees and the Employer.  In September 1986, the Union
       president prepared an article for publication requesting employees
       to volunteer for a team to deal with contracting out matters and
       to submit a proposed name for the team.  Respondent rejected the
       article as "not appropriate for publication."
 
          c.  Union bulletin board space.  Article 21, Section 6 of the
       agreement provides for Union bulletin board space in the Pentagon
       and "other buildings where there are 10 or more unit employees."
       The Union has five bulletin boards at the Pentagon.  It does not
       now have bulletin boards elsewhere.
 
          d.  Nonduty hour activity and desk drops.  Article 3, Section 4
       of the agreement recognizes that employees of the unit may conduct
       internal Union activity during nonduty hours.  It also provides
       that desk drops will be arranged by mutual agreement.  The Union
       has never attempted desk drops.  It attributes this to the fact
       that many employees are scattered throughout the Washington area
       and much of the working space is locked after duty hours.
 
          e.  Union meetings.  Article 21, Section 4 of the agreement
       provides that whenever practicable meeting facilities will be made
       available for Union activities during nonduty hours or during duty
       hours as specifically provided for by the agreement.  The Union
       holds monthly meetings.  The average attendance is approximately
       ten employees.
 
          f.  Officers andstewards.  Article 4, Section 3 and 4 of the
       agreement provides for Union officers and up to 15 stewards "so
       each employee in the unit will have reasonable access to a
       steward." The Union has 15 officers and stewards.  It does not now
       have stewards at the Andrews Air Force Base, Baileys Crossroads,
       Cameron Station, or Fern Street Annex locations.
 
          g.  Union office space and telephone.  Article 21, Section 7
       provides office space for use of the Union.  The Union office has
       a telephone.  The Union has not been furnished the telephone
       numbers of unit employees.  Respondent's telephone book has not
       been updated to include all bargaining unit employees.
 
    As of the date of the hearing, Respondent has refused to provide the
 Union with the information requested.
 
               Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations
 
    The General Counsel contends that the information is "reasonably
 available" within the requirement of section 7114(b)(4)(b) of the
 Statute, /1/ and the Authority's decision in Farmers Home Administration
 Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA No. 101 (1986), which was rendered
 after the hearing in this case, is dispositive of Respondent's other
 defenses.  Therefore, the General Counsel claims that Respondent
 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 pursuant to section 7114(b)(4).
 
    Respondent defends on the basis that the information was neither
 "normally maintained" nor "reasonably available" within the meaning of
 section 7114(b)(4)(A) and (B) of the Statute since the agency must
 either write a new computer program or have clerical personnel reconcile
 two separate lists.  Respondent also argues that the Authority should
 follow the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in American
 Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1923 v. United States
 Department of Health and Human Services, 712 F.2d 931 (4th Cir. 1983) in
 this case since it asserts that the matter arose at the Pentagon located
 in the State of Virginia, within the jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit
 Court of Appeals.  (See Finding 4).
 
    As found above (Finding No. 9), the parties stipulated at the hearing
 that the information requested by the Union "is normally maintained by
 Respondent in the regular course of business." Therefore, no
 consideration can be given to Respondent's post-hearing argument to the
 contrary.  It is also concluded that the information is "reasonably
 available" despite the fact that Respondent could compile the
 information only by having a computer programmer write a new computer
 program or by having clerical personnel reconcile two separate lists.
 The Authority has rejected identical arguments that such efforts to
 compile the information would place an undue burden or expense on an
 agency.  In Defense Mapping Agency Aerospace Center, St. Louis,
 Missouri, 19 FLRA No. 85 (1985), the agency also contended that the home
 addresses were not "reasonably available" because it would be necessary
 to pull the personnel files and hand record the addresses, with no
 guarantee of their accuracy, or develop a program for its computer at a
 cost that would go as high as $736.  19 FLRA at 690.  The Authority's
 decision on remand, 24 FLRA No. 5 (1986), rejected these arguments and
 held that "the names and home addresses of the unit employees are
 reasonably available to the Respondent and . . . it would not place an
 undue burden on the Respondent to provide the Union with the information
 requested." In Department of the Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, 24
 FLRA No. 28 (1986) the agency made similar arguments.  The Authority
 again held that the home addresses were "reasonably available."
 
    Respondent claims that disclosure of the home addresses is
 "prohibited by law" and is not "necessary" within the meaning of section
 7114(b)(4)(B).  Respondent asserts that the Union did not submit any
 justification for its request and has alternative means to reach the
 employees it represents.  The Authority's decision in Farmers Home
 Administration, Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA No. 101
 (October 31, 1986) is both controlling and dispositive of Respondent's
 contentions.  Thus, the Authority held, in part, as follows:
 
          "On balance, we find that the public interest to be furthered
       by providing the Union with an efficient method to communicate
       with unit employees it must represent far outweighs the privacy
       interests of individual employees in their names and home
       addresses.  Disclosure of the requested information would not
       constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and
       does not fall within the (b)(6) exemption to the FOIA.  Since the
       information does not fall within the exemption, its disclosure is
       required under the FOIA and, under exception (b)(2) to the Privacy
       Act, its release is not prohibited by law.  (23 FLRA No. 101 at p.
       6).
 
                       . . . .
 
 
          ". . . we conclude that the disclosure of the names and home
       addresses of bargaining unit employees to the Union is necessary
       within the meaning of section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute for the
       Union to discharge its statutory obligations.  Consistent with
       that conclusion, we find that the disclosure of the information
       sought here falls within the routine use established by OPM, and
       its disclosure is therefore a routine use under exception (b)(3)
       of the Privacy Act.  Therefore, even if the disclosure was not
       authorized under exception (b)(2) of the Privacy Act, relating to
       the FOIA, it is authorized under exception (b)(3).
 
          "Release of the requested information is therefore not
       prohibited by law.  It may be released pursuant to exceptions
       (b)(2) and (3) of the Privacy Act.  (23 FLRA No. 101 at p. 7).
 
          ". . . We find that the statutory requirement concerning
       sufficiency of a request under section 7114(b)(4) is request
       satisfied for requests such as that involved here when a general
       written request for the information is made.  A precise
       explication of the reasons for the request involved here is not
       necessary . . . an exclusive representative's need for the names
       and home addresses of the bargaining unit employees it is required
       to represent is so apparent and essentially related to the nature
       of exclusive representation itself, that unlike requests for
       certain types of other information, an agency's duty to supply
       names and home addresses information does not depend upon any
       separate explanation by the union, of its reasons for seeking the
       information.  (23 FLRA No. 101, at p. 8).
 
                       . . . .
 
 
          "We will not review the adequacy of alternative methods of
       communication on a case-by-case basis . . . we find that the mere
       existence of alternative means of communication is insufficient to
       justify a refusal to release the information.  Further, we find
       that it is not necessary for us to examine the adequacy of
       alternative means in cases involving requests for names and home
       addresses because the communication between the unit employees and
       their exclusive representative which would be facilitated by the
       release of names and home addresses information is fundamentally
       different from other communication through alternative means which
       are controlled in whole or in part by the agency.  When using
       direct mailings, the content, timing, and frequency of the
       communication is completely within the discretion of the union and
       there is no possibility of agency interference in the distribution
       of the message.  Further, direct mailings reach unit employees in
       circumstances where those employees may consider the union's
       communication without regard to the time constraints inherent in
       their work environments, and in which any restraint the employee
       may feel as a result of of the presence of agency management in
       the workplace is not present.  We find the names and home
       addresses of unit employees are necessary and should be provided
       whether or not alternative means of communication are available."
       (23 FLRA No. 101, at pp. 9-10).
 
    Respondent was required to furnish the names and home addresses
 requested by the Union, which were normally maintained by Respondent in
 the regular course of business and were reasonably available, without
 regard to whether alternative means of communication were available or
 adequate.  Respondent's refusal to furnish the requested information
 violated section 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute as alleged.
 
    Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is recommended
 that the Authority issue the following Order:
 
                                   ORDER
 
    Pursuant to section 2423.29 of the Rules and Regulations of the
 Federal Labor Relations Authority and section 7118 of the Statute, the
 Authority hereby orders that the Air Force District of Washington shall:
 
    1.  Cease and desist from:
 
          (a) Refusing to furnish, upon request of the AFGE-GAIU Council
       of HQUSAF Locals, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of its
       employees, the names and home addresses of all employees in the
       bargaining unit it represents.
 
          (b) In any like or related manner, interfering with,
       restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
       rights assured them by the Federal Service Labor-Management
       Relations Statute.
 
    Take the following affirmative action in order to effectuate the
 purposes and policies of the Statute.
 
          (a) Upon request by the AFGE-GAIU council of HQUSAF Locals,
       AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of its employees, furnish it
       with the names and home addresses of all employees in the
       bargaining unit it represents.
 
          (b) Post at its facilities where bargaining unit employees
       represented by the AFGE-GAIU Council of HQUSAF Locals, AFL-CIO are
       located, copies of the attached Notice on forms to be furnished by
       the Authority.  Upon receipt of such forms, they shall be signed
       by a senior official of the Air Force District of Washington 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 ensure 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 III, Federal
       Labor Relations Authority, Washington, D.C., in writing, within 30
       days from the date of this order, as to what steps have been taken
       to comply herewith.
 
                                       /s/ Garvin Lee Oliver
                                       Garvin Lee Oliver
                                       Administrative Law Judge
 
    Dated:  December 11, 1986
    Washington D.C.
 
 
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (1) Section 7114(b) provides that the "duty of an agency and an
 exclusive representative to negotiate in good faith 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(.)"
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                          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 to furnish, upon request of the AFGE-GAIU Council
 of HQUSAF Locals, AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of our
 employees, the names and home addresses of all employees in the
 bargaining unit it represents.
 
    WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain,
 or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights assured them by
 the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
    WE WILL, upon request by the AFGE-GAIU council of HQUSAF Locals,
 AFL-CIO, the exclusive representative of our employees, furnish it with
 the names and home addresses of all employees in the bargaining unit it
 represents.
                                       (Agency or Activity)
 
    Dated:  . . . . By:  . . . . (Signature)
 
    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