27:0445(62)CA - VA, Washington, DC and VA Regional Office and Insurance Center, St. Paul, MN and AFGE National VA Council Local 1969 -- 1987 FLRAdec CA



[ v27 p445 ]
27:0445(62)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 27 FLRA No. 62
 
 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION 
 WASHINGTON, D.C.
 
 and
 
 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION REGIONAL 
 OFFICE AND INSURANCE CENTER 
 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT 
 EMPLOYEES, NATIONAL VA COUNCIL 
 LOCAL 1969, AFL-CIO
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 5-CA-70070
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This unfair labor practice case is before the Authority in accordance
 with section 2429.1(a) of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, based
 upon a stipulation entered into by the parties.  The issue is whether
 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 Charging Party (the Union), the exclusive representative of
 a unit of the Respondent's employees, with the names and home addresses
 of those unit employees as requested by the Union.
 
                              II.  Background
 
    By letter dated November 17, 1986, the Union requested the names and
 home addresses of all bargaining unit employees employed at the
 Respondent's Regional Office and Insurance Center in St. Paul,
 Minnesota.  By letter dated November 21, 1986, the Respondent denied the
 request.  The parties stipulated that the names and home addresses of
 the employees are normally maintained by the Respondent in the regular
 course of business;  are reasonably available;  and do not constitute
 guidance, advice, counsel or training provided to management officials
 or supervisors relating to collective bargaining.
 
                      III.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Respondent contends that disclosure of the home addresses of
 employees is prohibited by the Privacy Act.  The Respondent also
 contends that home addresses are not necessary for the Union to carry
 out its collective bargaining duties, claiming that the Union provided
 no reason why it is necessary to communicate with the employees at home
 and that adequate alternate means are available for communication.  The
 Respondent urges the Authority to reconsider its determination in
 Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA
 No. 101 (1986), petition for review filed sub nom. U.S. Department of
 Agriculture and the Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St.
 Louis, Missouri v. FLRA, No. 86-2779 (8th Cir. Dec. 23, 1986).  The
 Respondent asserts that the disclosure of unit employees'