Page 11 - 2018 Janus Toolkit CCD

SB 866, the employer is supposed to rely on the union’s representation as to the employee’s membership
status. So the employer could be faced with a situation where the employee demands that dues deductions
stop and the union demands they continue for the duration of the membership agreement. In such
circumstances, employers will have to make the decision of stopping deductions at the employee’s request or
continuing the deductions at the union’s request. Because this is an evolving area of the law, we recommend
that employers work with their legal counsel to understand risks and benefits of each option before deciding
which option to exercise.

Q. MY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT RECENTLY RECEIVED A CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
(“CPRA”) REQUEST FOR A LIST OF UNION MEMBERS INCLUDING THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION.
HOW SHOULD I RESPOND?
A. This request appears to have been issued state-wide by an entity that may be seeking to encourage union
members to cease paying their dues in accordance with the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME
(No. 16–1466, Decided June 27, 2018).
This request should be approached thoughtfully due to the variety of laws and obligations implicated. On
one hand, the college is obligated under the CPRA (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) to provide all responsive,
non-exempt, “public records.” On the other hand, some community college districts may have also received
requests from their bargaining units generally requesting:
a) That the college provide the bargaining unit with notice if a CPRA request, such as this one, is received by
the college prior to responding to the requesting party; and
b) That the college refuse to provide contact information.

In some situations where a CPRA request is made for personnel information that the college intends
to disclose, some colleges have notified the affected employees. If this is past practice that the college
is considering, please keep in mind Senate Bill (SB) 285, which prohibits employers from deterring or
discouraging public employees from becoming or remaining members of a union, and SB 866, which
restricts a public employer’s ability to send employees mass communications about joining or not joining a
union. Depending on how such notice is phrased, a bargaining unit may challenge the college on one of the
aforementioned laws.

There are several options available for responding to such a request including providing all of the information
requested, providing some of the information requested, or refusing to provide any of the information
requested. Because the option taken in responding could impact your relationship with your labor partners
and/or lead to litigation for failing to comply with the CPRA or violating employee privacy rights, we
recommend you carefully weigh each option, in conjunction with legal counsel, before deciding how you will
respond.

Q. ANYTHING ELSE I SHOULD KNOW?
A. In anticipation of the Janus decision, labor unions throughout California lobbied legislators to obtain more
protective and union friendly laws on the books in order to acquire and retain more dues payers. AB 119,
requiring public employers to give unions access to new employee orientations and onboarding, is an example
of these lobbying efforts that have translated into new law. In addition, SB 285, signed into law in October
2017, makes it unlawful for a public employer to “deter or discourage public employees from becoming or
remaining members of an employee organization.”
As mentioned earlier, SB 866 will have a significant impact on public employers in California. Under SB 866,
public employers are not able to obtain an employee’s written authorization for payroll deductions to a union
unless a dispute arises about such deductions. This could significantly hamper the ability to properly process
payroll if the employer does not have up-to-date payroll records of who is an agency fee payer. The bill does

Janus v. AFSCME Frequently Asked Questions LozanoSmith.com