10.25.2011
Union Requests for Information: Has the Law Changed?
Recently, our clients have been getting bombarded with requests from local unions for information related to pending disciplinary cases and grievances, with the unions claiming that the information is “necessary and relevant” to the representation of their members. No doubt this recent uptick in such requests is due the June 30, 2011 PERB decision in SEIU 1021 v. City of Redding, which held that it was an unfair labor practice for the City to deny the union a copy of a confidential investigation report into sensitive personnel matters. Notably, the City recently appealed the PERB decision to the California Court of Appeals, so for the short term, the case is of no precedential value.
But regardless of how the case is ultimately decided by the Court of Appeal, the City of Redding case is actually not as compelling as the unions are claiming. This is because any request for information dispute depends on its own set of facts. As the City of Redding case itself noted, “Information request cases ordinarily turn on the particular facts involved, so each request is analyzed separately.” (City of Redding, citing Chula Vista City School District (1990) PERB Decision No. 834.)
In the City of Redding case, the union was requesting a formal investigation report involving employees working in a city customer service division. The investigation report was prepared by an outside investigator. The City had sent a letter to the union informing it that as a result of issues addressed in the report, certain changes would be made to the customer service division. The letter asked for the union’s support in directing bargaining unit members to use the chain of command to resolve problems, among other things. The union then requested a copy of the formal investigation report. The union justified the request by stating that it was unable to assess whether the issues raised by its members had been addressed without seeing the report. This, in turn, was necessary because the union and the City had agreed to implement a new job classification if customer service issues had been resolved. The City withheld the report on the grounds that it was confidential and contained confidential personnel information. PERB ultimately held that the report was “relevant and necessary” for the union to represent bargaining members, and ordered that the report be produced.
Lately, however, unions have been requesting actual investigation and interview notes by internal personnel directors, and/or written materials that public entities are relying in making personnel decisions. Such requests are likely distinguishable from the holding in City of Redding. Moreover, there are still numerous defenses available to public entities receiving information requests. For example, an employer need not comply with a request for information if the request is unduly burdensome. (See State of California (Departments of Personnel Administration and Transportation) (1997) PERB Decision No. 1227‑S.) Constitutional rights of personal privacy, and other reasons, may limit otherwise lawful demands for production of confidential information. PERB has adopted a balancing test to apply in situations involving confidential information. (Los Rios Community College District (1988) PERB Decision No. 670.) Obviously, in applying such a balancing test, each case is considered on its own separate facts.
In addition, Carmichael Recreation & Park District (2008) PERB Decision No. 1953-M, held that a Skelly hearing was an “extra-contractual” proceeding, and the union was not entitled to make requests for information. San Bernardino City Unified School District (1998) PERB Decision No. 1270 provides that an employer need not provide the union with a witness list requested for a Personnel Commission disciplinary appeal hearing.
The justification for a request for information “must be more than a mere concoction of some general theory which explains how the information would be useful to the union in determining if the employer has committed some unknown contract violation.” (Ventura County Community College District (1999) PERB Decision No. 1340, citing Los Angeles Unified School District (1994) PERB Decision No. 1061.) In another case PERB held that a request was unjustified based on a longstanding line of authority that “there is no obligation for an employer to provide detail regarding the thought process or rationale underlying its managerial decisions.” (Id., citing State of California (Departments of Personnel Administration and Transportation) (1997) PERB Dec. No. 1227-S.)
In light of the current ambiguity in the law, the possibility that confidential information is involved, as well as the fact that each situation will turn on its own facts, public employers should continue to be cautious in how they respond to requests for information, and have those requests reviewed by counsel.
Categories: Labor/Employment
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- How far is too far? Searching Students’ Homes and Remote Test Proctoring
- Making Cybersecurity a Priority
- U.S. Department of Education Issues Proposed Amendments to Title IX Regulations
- Inadvertent Disability Discrimination May Lurk in Hiring Software, Artificial Intelligence and Algorithms
- Students and Social Media – Can Schools Discipline Students for Off-Campus Speech?
- Fact Specific Analysis is Key when Restricting on Employee Expression
- Monitoring Students’ Online Activities
- Technology Beyond the Classroom: Engaging Parents with More Flexibility and Support
- How Distance Learning Highlighted Ed Tech Inequities
- Federal Aviation Administration Implements New Rules Regarding Drone Use, Effectively Expanding the Ability to Operate Drones Without the Need for a Certificate of Authorization
Popular Categories
- (54)
- (81)
- (96)
- (43)
- (53)
- (22)
- (11)
- (40)
- (11)
- (22)
- (6)
- (4)
- (3)
- (2)
- (2)
- (3)
- (4)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Lisa R. Allred
- Steven J. Andelson
- Ernest L. Bell
- William M. Betley
- Mark R. Bresee
- W. Bryce Chastain
- J. Kayleigh Chevrier
- Andreas C. Chialtas
- Georgelle C. Cuevas
- Scott D. Danforth
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- Mary Beth de Goede
- Anthony P. De Marco
- Peter E. Denno
- William A. Diedrich
- A. Christopher Duran
- Amy W. Estrada
- Jennifer R. Fain
- Eve P. Fichtner
- Paul S. Fleck
- Mellissa E. Gallegos
- Stephanie L. Garrett
- Karen E. Gilyard
- Todd A. Goluba
- Jacqueline D. Hang
- Davina F. Harden
- Suparna Jain
- Jonathan Judge
- Warren S. Kinsler
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Tien P. Le
- Alex A. Lozada
- Kimberly C. Ludwin
- Bryan G. Martin
- Paul Z. McGlocklin
- Stephen M. McLoughlin
- Anna J. Miller
- Jacquelyn Takeda Morenz
- Joshua E. Morrison
- Kristin M. Myers
- Katrina J. Nepacena
- Adam J. Newman
- Anthony P. Niccoli
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Gabrielle E. Ortiz
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Rebeca Quintana
- Elizabeth J. Rho-Ng
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Brooke Romero
- Alyssa Ruiz de Esparza
- Lauren Ruvalcaba
- Scott J. Sachs
- Elena C. Sanchez
- Gabriel A. Sandoval
- Peter A. Schaffert
- Constance J. Schwindt
- Justin R. Shinnefield
- Amber M. Solano
- David A. Soldani
- Constance M. Taylor
- Mark W. Thompson
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Jabari A. Willis
- Sara C. Young
- Elizabeth Zamora-Mejia
Archives
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
- December 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- January 2018
2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
2015
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012