The Court agreed with the lower courts that the employees had a reasonable expectation that the County would maintain the privacy of their home addresses and telephone numbers, particularly given the County’s longstanding practice of withholding this information. The Court then addressed whether the disclosure violated the employees’ right to privacy. After extensively reviewing analogous federal and California state labor law cases, the Court concluded that the information was relevant and that the County’s failure to provide it violated its duty to meet and confer in good faith. Union’s Need Trumps Employees’ Privacy RightsĪs a threshold matter, the Supreme Court first examined whether the SEIU’s request for the employees’ home addresses and phone numbers was relevant to its bargaining obligations. The Supreme Court granted the SEIU’s petition for review. The County appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that the non-union employees were entitled to notice and an opportunity to object to the disclosure. The County petitioned for a writ of administrative mandate, but the trial court denied the petition. ERCOM adopted the hearing officer’s findings and ordered the County to disclose the information. An administrative hearing officer found the contact information was presumptively relevant to SEIU’s representation. SEIU opposed these alternatives, withdrew its proposal, and filed a charge with ERCOM alleging an unfair employee relations practice. The County proposed either to continue the current arrangement or to negotiate a procedure for employees to release their own data. The County rejected the SEIU’s demand for the employees’ contact information, arguing that it was not relevant to any collective bargaining issue and disclosure would violate non-union employees’ privacy rights. The SEIU maintained that it required this information to provide certain notices to employees and to collect fees from non-union members. Therefore, the SEIU delivered the notices to the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (“ERCOM”), and ERCOM mailed the notices, using address labels provided by the County.ĭuring contract negotiations in 2006, SEIU proposed amending the collective bargaining agreement to require the County to provide it with the names and home addresses of all employees covered by the agency shop agreements. Historically, the County did not provide the home addresses or telephone numbers of any employees to the SEIU. The notice packet also includes forms allowing the employee to join or decline to join the union. The County entered into an “agency shop” agreement with the SEIU that required all employees, as a condition of employment, either to join the SEIU or to pay to the SEIU a fair share or agency shop fee.Įach year, the SEIU is required to send a notice to all non-union employees outlining membership options, applicable fees, and the reasons for the fees. The Service Employees International Union, Local 721 (“SEIU”) is the exclusive bargaining representative of all Los Angeles County employees. The Court further ruled the Court of Appeal erred in imposing procedural requirements limiting the disclosure of the non-union employees’ contact information. Although the Court recognized the non-union employees had a right to privacy in their home addresses and telephone numbers under the California Constitution and their disclosure was a serious invasion of that right, the Court determined the union’s interest in communicating with employees significantly outweighed their privacy rights. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Comm’n (Serv. Los Angeles County must provide the union representing its employees under an “agency shop” agreement with the home addresses and telephone numbers of all county employees, including non-union employees, the California Supreme Court has ruled.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |