In the context of the threshold issue, the Supreme Court first considered whether seIU`s application for employees` residence addresses and telephone numbers was relevant to their bargaining obligations. Following a thorough review of similar cases of California federal and labour law, the court found that the information was relevant and that the county`s failure to make it available violated its duty to meet and lend in good faith. The Service Employees International Union, Local 721 (“SEIU”) is the exclusive negotiator for all employees in Los Angeles County. Landkreis entered into an “Agenturshop” agreement with seIU that required all employees as a condition of employment, either to join the SEIU or to pay SEIU a fair share or an agency purchase tax. During contract negotiations in 2006, SEIU proposed to amend the collective agreement so that Landkreis would provide the names and residence addresses of all employees covered by agency agreements. SEIU stated that it needed this information to transmit certain communications to staff and to collect fees from non-union members. Although the Court found the Court to be mistaken in imposing an opt-out procedure, Landkreis could negotiate with seIU to include such procedures in its employment contracts or to include provisions in employment contracts that inform workers that their residence addresses and telephone numbers are disclosed and allow them to request non-disclosure. Los Angeles County must make available to the union that represents its employees the addresses and phone numbers of all county employees, including non-unionized employees, as part of an “agency shop” agreement, the California Supreme Court ruled. County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Comm`n (Serv. Employees Int`l Union, Local 721), S191944 (Kal.

May 30, 2013). Although the court recognized that union independent workers had a right to privacy in their addresses and telephone numbers, in accordance with the California Constitution, and that their disclosure constituted a serious violation of that right, the court found that the union`s interest in communicating with workers far outweighs their data protection rights. The Court also found that the Court of Appeal erred in imposing procedural rules limiting the disclosure of contact information for non-union workers. The Court then considered whether SEIU`s interest in contact information for non-salaried workers outweighed workers` data protection rights and concluded that the Court had done so. The Court justified this decision by the fact that seIU, which gave all workers in the bargaining unit it represents, including non-union members, a duty of fair representation, required information on full communication with workers. The Court also found that the provision of this information would allow non-unionized workers to join the union and that alternative means of communication with workers, such as posts or trade union assemblies, were insufficient. Landkreis rejected SEIU`s request to provide contact information to employees on the grounds that it was not relevant to collective bargaining and that disclosure would violate the data protection rights of non-union workers. The Landkreis proposed either to continue the current regime or to negotiate a procedure allowing workers to share their own data.

SEIU rejected these alternatives, withdrew its proposal and filed a complaint with ERCOM, in which it invoked an unfair practice in relations with workers.