□ □
□ □ □
[□] □
Finally , the Respondents argue 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 . In our view , adoption of the General Counsel 's position , that the requested information was necessary for the Union to fulfill its statutory obligations under section 7114 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) , would interfere with the Respondent 's legitimate interests and prerogatives , recognized by the Court in Weingarten , in achieving the objective of the examination , preserving the integrity of the investigation , and avoiding an adversarial contest . I also remember him picketing the company mine for the Union to get organized . The Respondents also argue that the General Counsel has not demonstrated that the names and home addresses of bargaining unit employees are " data " which is relevant and necessary for the Union to fulfill its representational responsibilities . The Authority analyzed the interplay of the Statute , the Privacy Act , and the Freedom of Information Act , and concluded that , " the release of names and home addresses to the Union is not prohibited by law , is necessary for the Union to fulfill its duties under the Statute , and meets the other requirements of section 7114 ( b ) ( 4 ) .