24:0003(1)NG - NFFE Local 1655 and Adjutant General of Illinois -- 1986 FLRAdec NG

 24 FLRA No. 1
 
 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL 
 EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 1655
 Union
 
 and
 
 ADJUTANT GENERAL OF ILLINOIS
 Agency
 
                                     Case No. 0-NG-1198
 
                 DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE
 
                         I.  Statement of the Case
 
    This case is before the Authority because of a negotiability appeal
 filed by the Union under section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service
 Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and presents an issue
 concerning the negotiability of the following Union proposal:
 
       The Union has a right to all Union members(') home addresses.
       This will be furnished by the Employer to the Union twice (2) a
       year, once in January and once in July.
 
    For the reasons which follow, we conclude that the Union's proposal
 is within the duty to bargain.
 
                       II.  Positions of the Parties
 
    The Agency, in its Statement of Position, contends that release of
 Union members' home addresses is prohibited under section (b)(6) of the
 Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a (1982), and is, therefore, exempt
 from disclosure under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.  The Agency
 argues that the employees' privacy interest in their home addresses
 outweighs the necessity of providing that information for the Union's
 purposes.  Additionally, the Agency filed a response to the Authority's
 request for amicus briefs concerning the issue of disclosure of names
 and home addresses of unit employees.  51 Fed. Reg. 21,416 (1986).  In
 its response, the Agency contends that the proposal in this case
 concerning disclosure of home addresses of "Union" members is
 distinguishable from the request for disclosure of home addresses of
 "unit" members, which the Second Circuit found the Privacy Act did not
 prohibit.  American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1760 v.
 FLRA, 786 F.2d 554 (2d Cir. 1986) reversing Social Security
 Administration, Northeastern Program Service Center, 19 FLRA No. 108
 (1985).  The Agency argues that some Union members (for example,
 retirees) may not also be unit members and that it, therefore, may not
 have the information requested by the Union.
 
    The Union contends that its proposal comes under the "routine use"
 exemption of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b)(3).  It argues
 that the information requested is necessary to fully represent unit
 employees and that the Agency is obligated to disclose the information
 under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.
 
                       III.  Analysis and Conclusion
 
    In the Decision and Order on Remand in Farmers Home Administration
 Finance Office, St. Louis, Missouri, 23 FLRA No. 101 (1986), we held
 that the agency was required to furnish the names and home addresses of
 unit employees to the exclusive representative.  After considering the
 record in that case and amicus submissions filed in response to the
 Authority's notice in the Federal Register, we concluded that the
 release of names and home addresses of unit employees to the union is
 not prohibited by the Privacy Act, is necessary for the union to fulfill
 its duties under the Statute, and meets the requirements for disclosure
 under section 7114(b)(4) of the Statute.
 
    Based on the Union's statements and arguments in its Response to the
 Agency's Statement of Position, we construe the proposal as applying
 only to Union members who are employees in the bargaining unit
 exclusively represented by the Union.  Since the proposal would require
 the Agency to provide the Union with the home addresses of employees in
 the unit, the proposal is not significantly different from the union's
 request in Farmers Home Administration Finance Office.  Accordingly, for
 the reasons set forth more fully in Farmers Home Administration Finance
 Office, we conclude that the home addresses requested in the Union's
 proposal are subject to disclosure under section 7114(b)(4), and that
 the proposal is within the duty to bargain.
 
                                IV.  Order
 
    The Agency shall upon request, or as otherwise agreed to by the
 parties, bargain on the Union's proposal.  /*/
 
    Issued, Washington, D.C., November 10, 1986.
                                       Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman
                                       Henry B. Frazier III, Member
                                       Jean McKee, Member
                                       FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
 
 
                ---------------  FOOTNOTES$ ---------------
 
 
 
    (*) In finding the proposal to be within the duty to bargain, the
 Authority makes no judgment as to its merits.