28:1129(146)CA - Commerce, National Bureau of Standards and Washington Area MTC -- 1987 FLRAdec CA

[ v28 p1129 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

28 FLRA No. 146





               Charging Party

Case No. 3-CA-70340


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 the parties' stipulation of facts. 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 Washington Area Metal Trades Council (the Union) with the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees of the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. The Respondent and the General Counsel filed briefs. For the reasons stated below, we find that the Respondent has committed the unfair labor practice as alleged.

II. Facts

The Union is the exclusive representative of a unit of employees at the National Bureau of Standards. By letter dated February 10, 1987, the Union requested that the Respondent furnish it with the names and home addresses of all bargaining unit employees. By letter dated April 10, 1987, the Respondent refused to furnish the Union with the information requested. The parties stipulated that the information requested is normally maintained by the Respondent in the regular course of business and does not constitute guidance, advice, counsel or training for management officials or supervisors, relating to collective bargaining. [PAGE]

III. Positions of the Parties

The Respondent asserts that the complaint should be dismissed because the General Counsel has not established that the Respondent violated section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute. The Respondent argues that the Authority erred in its Decision on Remand in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA No. 101 (1986) (Farmers Home), petition for review filed sub nom. U.S. Department of Agriculture and Farmers Home Administration Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri v. FLRA, No. 86-2579 (8th Cir. Dec. 23, 1986), and contends that the disclosure of the names and home addresses of unit employees is prohibited by the Privacy Act. The Respondent argues that the Authority should consider the availability of reasonable alternative means for the Union to communicate with employees in determining whether the employees' substantial privacy interest in nondisclosure of their home addresses is outweighed by the Union's need for the addresses.

The General Cou