Court of Appeal confirms limits to the disclosure of union represented State workers’ contact information related to the collective bargaining process with the State
Back in 2020, the Freedom Foundation, a conservative, anti-union think tank, submitted two California Public Records Act requests demanding that the State’s Department of Human Resources (CalHR) disclose records regarding collective bargaining units and state employees. The requests sought the name of the labor organization representing each bargaining unit of State employees, the names of agencies and departments with represented employees, the number of employees in each bargaining unit, the number of employees in each bargaining unit with union dues or fees withheld, the total amount of union dues and fees withheld by the State, and personally identifiable information for each represented State employee.
CalHR denied the two requests, explaining that the responsive documents were protected under Government Code section 6254, subdivision (p)(1) (this exemption is now codified as Gov. Code § 7928.405). This statute exempts from disclosure state agencies’ records related to activities governed by the Dills Act if they “reveal a state agency’s deliberative processes, impressions, evaluations, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work products, theories, or strategy.” The Dills Act is the law governing the collective bargaining process between labor organizations and the State. Here, CalHR explained that the documents requested contained CalHR’s research and analysis used to develop strategies for collective bargaining and to evaluate bargaining proposals. CalHR also added that the requested documents were actually under the control of the State Controller’s Office, so it did not have the authority to provide these records. A trial court agreed with CalHR and denied Freedom Foundation’s petition and complaint demanding the production of the records requested.
On December 5, 2022, in Freedom Foundation v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, rejecting the Freedom Foundation’s argument that the exemption under Government Code section 6254, subdivision (p)(1) only applies to records revealing a state agency’s “deliberative processes.” The Court of Appeal made clear that the plain language of the statute exempts all records that implicate any of the items in the list (including research and strategies) as part of the agency’s participation in the collective bargaining process. The Court of Appeal also ruled that CalHR was not required to produce redacted records in this case because the exempt and nonexempt portions of the documents could not be reasonably separated out. Furthermore, CalHR did not have actual or constructive possession of the information requested, which was contained in databases maintained by the State Controller’s Office.
This decision is a positive development for labor unions representing State workers in California, curtailing the Freedom Foundation’s repeated efforts to interfere with union membership. The decision makes clear that there are limits to the disclosure of contact information of represented State workers where it is related to the collective bargaining process with the State. For more information about this decision, please contact your labor law counsel.
By Winnie Vien