County of LA v. LA County Employee Relations Commission: County Must Disclose Employee Contact Information to Union that Represents Them

The Supreme Court of California has issued its decision in County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (5/30/13) --- Cal.4th ---, which involves "the balance between an employee's right of informational privacy and a union's right to obtain information it needs to represent the employee in collective bargaining." The Court held as follows: 

The Service Employees International Union, Local 721 (SEIU) is the exclusive bargaining representative of all Los Angeles County (County) employees. The question here is whether SEIU is entitled to obtain the home addresses and phone numbers of all represented employees, including those who have not joined the union. We agree with both courts below that it is so entitled but reverse the Court of Appeal's imposition of procedural requirements limiting disclosure.  

State and federal labor decisions have long held that unions are presumptively entitled to contact information for all employees they represent. These decisions, and applicable labor laws, generally obligate the County to give SEIU the requested information. Whether the right to privacy under article I, section 1 of the California Constitution prohibits disclosure is a question of first impression. We conclude that, although the County's employees have a cognizable privacy interest in their home addresses and telephone numbers, the balance of interests strongly favors disclosure of this information to the union that represents them. Procedures may be developed for employees who object to this disclosure. However, the Court of Appeal exceeded its authority in this administrative mandate proceeding by attempting to impose specific procedures on the parties. 

Slip op. at 1-2.  

The opinion is available here.

County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission: Opinion To Issue Tomorrow

In County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission, the California Supreme Court will decide the following issues:

(1) Under the state Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 1), do the interests of non-union-member public employees in the privacy of their personal contact information outweigh the interests of the union representing their bargaining unit in obtaining that information in furtherance of its duties as a matter of labor law to provide fair and equal representation of union-member and non-union-member employees within the bargaining unit?  

(2) Did the Court of Appeal err in remanding to the trial court with directions to apply a specific notice procedure to protect such employees' privacy rights instead of permitting the parties to determine the proper procedure for doing so? 

The Court has just given notice that it will issue the decision tomorrow, May 30, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. The Court's web page for County of L.A. is here.  

Chesbro v. Best Buy: Ninth Circuit Holds That Calls Were "Unsolicited Advertisements," Reverses Summary Judgment for Defendant in Privacy Class Action

As the legal landscape has changed, I'm seeing more cases involving allegations of invasion of privacy. See, e.g., Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (9th Cir. 10/12/12) (discussed here).  Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, LLP, --- F.3d --- (9th Cir. 10/17/12, mod. 12/27/12), is another of these cases.  

The plaintiff bought a computer from Best Buy in 2008. He may or may not have signed up for Best Buy's Reward Zone Program (“RZP”) at the time. He received a number of computerized telephone calls at his home from Best Buy after he bought the computer. He filed suit, alleging that Best Buy violated Washington state law and the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”). 47 U.S.C. § 227. 

The district court granted summary judgment in Best Buy’s favor, and the plaintiff appealed.  The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the calls were prohibited “unsolicited advertisements”: 

The robot-calls urged the listener  to “redeem” his Reward Zone points, directed him  to a  website where he could further engage with the RZP, and thanked him for “shopping at Best Buy.”  Redeeming Reward Zone points required going to a Best Buy store and making further purchases of Best Buy’s goods.  There was no other use for the  Reward Zone points.  Thus, the calls encouraged the listener to make future purchases at Best Buy.  Neither the statute nor the regulations require an explicit mention of a good, product, or service where the implication is clear from the context.  Any additional information provided in the calls does not inoculate them.  

Slip op. at 11.  

The opinion is available here.