This blog post was authored by Adrianna E. Guzman, Brian P. Walter and Shardé C. Thomas
Today the California Supreme Court published a decision, County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission, that requires a public employer to disclose home contact information for all bargaining unit members to the representative for the bargaining unit.
Facts
The Service Employees International Union, Local 721 (“Union”), is the exclusive representative for several bargaining units of County employees. Approximately 14,500 County employees were not members of the Union. The Union was required to annually send a Hudson notice to County employees in their bargaining units, informing the unit employees of their membership options, applicable fees, and reasons they were required to pay the fees. Included in the Union’s Hudson notice was a solicitation letter to join the Union or forms to decline to join. The forms requested names, home addresses, and home telephone numbers of County employees who decline to join the Union. The Union had names and telephone numbers for less than half of the 14,500 non-members. In the past, the Union prepared the Hudson notice, the County prepared the mailing labels, and the County Employee Relations Commission (“Commission”) mailed the Hudson notices, along with the Union’s solicitation letter and forms.
During negotiations in 2006, the Union proposed a change to the MOU Hudson notice obligation that would require the County to furnish the Union with names and home addresses of employees covered by the agency shop provisions each year. The Union wanted the personal information of the non-members to communicate about union activities and events, but also as a recruitment tool. The County maintained that the information was irrelevant to any collective bargaining issue and disclosure would impede on non-members’ constitutional privacy rights. The County proposed they continue their current Hudson mailing method or negotiate a procedure that would authorize the release of the information.
The Union rejected both of the County’s options, withdrew its proposal to modify the Hudson notice provision, and filed an unfair practice charge against the County. The unfair practice charge was heard by the Commission. Relying on decisions of the Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), the Commission ordered production of the personal information of non-member County...
