CA Supreme Court Rules Public Sector Unions Have Absolute Right to Non-Member Contact Information
June 7, 2013 by Dalisai Nisperos
The California Supreme Court, in a decision issued May 30, 2013, ruled that public sector unions have a right to obtain home contact information of union-represented public employees, reversing a court of appeal decision that would have required unions to exhaust notice and opt-out procedures before obtaining the information. County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission.
The case arose when the SEIU, during bargaining with Los Angeles County, requested the County to disclose the names and home addresses of County employees who were not members of the union. The Union explained the information would enable it to communicate with employees about union activities, investigate grievances, and facilitate mailing of annual fee notices. The County refused to provide the information, asserting that the contact information was irrelevant to collective bargaining issues and that disclosure would violate the privacy interests of employees. The SEIU filed an unfair practice charge with the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission which found that the contact information was presumptively relevant to the Union’s representation of the County employees (both members and non-members) and the trial court affirmed. The appellate court reversed, holding that under state law non-member employees have a privacy right in their home address information, and a reasonable expectation that they will receive notice and an opportunity to object to disclosure of that information to the union representing them.
The California Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s holding on two grounds. First, the Court ruled that under state and federal labor law, the home addresses and phone numbers of represented County employees are presumed relevant to the Union’s representational duties. The County violated its duty to meet and confer in good faith because it withheld the information without showing it was irrelevant to the Union’s representational duties, and gave no reason why it could not provide the information to the Union. Second, the Court ruled that disclosure of the information does not violate employees’ right of privacy under the California Constitution. Addressing a question of first impression, the Court concluded that the Union’s legitimate interest in fulfilling its duty of representation substantially outweighs employees’ interest in keeping the information private. The Court also concluded that alternative means of communication – bulletin board announcements, union meetings and worksite visits – are inadequate means of communicating with large groups of dispersed employees, and rejected the employer’s argument that disclosure would coerce employees to join the Union.
The Supreme Court found that the appellate court erroneously failed to consider the Union’s interest in disclosure and exceeded its jurisdiction by requiring that non-member employees be provided with notice, and an opportunity to prevent the proposed disclosures.
When looking for guidance in Labor Law applicable to public sector employees, the attorneys at Beeson, Tayer & Bodine have the experience. We are always keeping current on recent rulings in the public sector labor law area, as well as in our other areas of expertise.
The material on this website is provided by Beeson, Tayer & Bodine for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own legal counsel before acting on any of the information presented. Some of the articles are updated periodically, and are marked with the date of the last update. Again, readers should consult with their own legal counsel for the most current information and to obtain professional advice before acting on any of the information presented.
