# Julius G. Getman v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · August 31, 1971 · 450 F.2d 670

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9457510

## Case

- **Full name:** Julius G. GETMAN Et Al. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** August 31, 1971
- **Citations:** 450 F.2d 670; 16 A.L.R. Fed. 499; 146 U.S. App. D.C. 209; 78 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2101; 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 8295
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by MacKINNON
- **Judges:** MacKinnon, Wright, Robb
- **Cited by:** 214 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9457510

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “a bare list of names and addresses of employees which employers are required by law to give the Board, without any express promise of confidentiality, and which cannot be fairly characterized as ‘trade secrets’ or ‘financial’ or ‘commercial’ information is not ex…
- holding that Exemption 4 does not exempt identifying information that “employers are required by law to give to the [National Labor Relations] Board”
- finding that “the possible detrimental effects of the study in terms of delaying the election process [were] highly speculative”
- holding that “the loss of privacy resulting from this particular disclosure should be characterized as relatively minor”

## Opinion text

MacKINNON, Circuit Judge
(concurring) :
The extremely broad sweep of the Freedom of Information Act, with its narrow exemptions, makes it mandatory in my opinion — if we are to follow the directions of Congress — to direct the National Labor Relations Board to furnish appellees with the names and addresses of employees as requested. However, I agree with the Board that this request could lead to undesirable interference in elections. Furnishing these lists for use by third parties during the representation election may interject a third factor which really has no place in the election. I cannot say, however, that the release of the lists “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Whether appellees’ interference in these elections will be misunderstood and mis *681 interpreted and will cause adverse reactions is unpredictable at this stage.
My principal concern is for the future. We are here following the dictates of Congress and are making information available for a use that may interfere with the proper functioning of government. This use may have its beneficial effects also, but before the good is harvested considerable turmoil and disruption may result. And this decision is only the beginning. We may expect similar wholesale demands for lists of names and addresses from other persons, not for what they may disclose about the functioning of government, but for their collateral ability to aid the person requesting such information.
While it must be recognized that the Board might return the lists to the employers and in the future might alter its Excelsior rule so that employers would deliver the names and addresses to the unions directly rather than filing them with the regional directors, 1 and thus obviate the requirement to disclose, the annoyance to individuals and the Government that could result from requiring the Government to furnish various lists of names and addresses to various persons on request could be very substantial.
It seems to me that furnishing bare lists of names and addresses of various groups of persons in various Government files is not the sort of disclosure that Congress basically had in mind in enacting the Freedom of Information Act. But in my opinion, the Act as it presently exists practically requires the disclosure of such lists on demand. One need not elaborate on the various abuses that could result if lists of people as classified by the Government for particular purposes became available practically on demand in wholesale lots. If this situation is to be corrected, it will require an amendment to the Act.
. Excelsior Underwear Corp., 156 N.L.R.B. 1236 , 1239 (1966).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9457510. Public record. Not legal advice.