Union requested employee names/address

HCA

I received a strange request from our union regarding "updating their records". They asked for a full list of all employees covered under our collective bargaining agreement and their addresses. They specifically state they don't want a copy of our payroll because it "only shows the employees we already have signed up". I don't get it. Why would WE give them the addresses to their own members AND why don't they know who's covered? Are they worried about new employees not being signed up? But that should still be covered by our payroll! I'm always skeptical with our union, so maybe I'm just being overly hesitant for nothing. However, with the addresses, I'm worried about confidentiality.

LFernandes

That is strange. Dig a little deeper and maybe you'll find an answer. Who is requesting it a clerk or a union official?

LFernandes

HCA

"membership coordinator"

ritaanz

When I worked for a unionized company, included in the CBA was a paragraph that the company supply the Business Agent an updated memebership list each year. The list included names and addresses. What does your CBA say about this subject?

HCA

Nothing.

LFernandes

If your current CBA doesn't have anything, look back at your old contracts. Many times, we had to pull old documents to see there was anything there. Is there anything under Union Security and Check-off dues or on the check-off form itself? How do you normally notify the Union that a new employee has started?

LFernandes

Don D

Ritaanz is right. If your CBA does not include a requirement that you furnish them with a periodic list of those covered by the agreement (which would include members and non-members in the eligible group in right-to-work states) or unless you are required by the CBA to provide an annual seniority list, do not respond to the request, except to decline. If it's not your obligation, don't take it on as a duty. You might also remind them that recruiting members while on company time is (probably) a contract violation.

vmiller MO

Since you have a CBA, we must assume that the union is lawfully recognized and is the exclusive bargaining agent for the employees covered by the CBA. Under the National Labor Relations Act, the employer is obligated to bargain in good faith with the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees in an appropriate unit. As part of the duty to bargain, the employer is reguired to provide, upon request, to the union information that is necessary and relevant for the union to fulfill its bargaing obligatons. Certain information is "presumptively relevant." The NLRB with court approval have ruled that the names and address and dates of hire of employees who are in the bargaining unit is presumptively relevant. Thus, eventhough your contract does not require you to provide the requested information, you are required by law to do so.,
Vance Miller
Editor, Missouri Employment Law Letter
Armstrong Teasdale LLP
(314) 621-5070
[email]vmiller@armstrongteasdale.com[/email]

Don D

I certainly defer to Vance, since he's making the big bucks; however, I do wonder why I've been told by two other labor lawyers that we are not obligated to provide company information, including personnel or payroll information, unless specifically bargained for and contained in the CBA.

If Vance is correct, and I must assume he is, I wouldn't be surprised if the Act also would require that we advise the union of who took or turned down insurance (since insurance premiums are part of the contract), an annual list of all disciplined employees and copies of all job bids that resulted from postings. Surely there are some limitations to this 'presumptive relevance' theory.

vmiller MO

Don:
You are correct that there are limits. The U.S. Supreme Court, in NLRB v. Acme Industrial, 385 U.S. 432 (1967) held that the duty to furnish information "extends beyond the period of contract negotiations and applies to labor-management relations during the term of the agreement." The Court went on to liken the duty to furnish information to the broad discovery standard in federal court litigation. Naturally, these words were music to the NLRB's ears.

The NLRB and the courts have furthermore held that names and addresses of the employees is fundamental to the union's ability to communicate with its employees. See, NLRB v. CJC Holdings, Inc., 97 F.3rd 114, (5th. Cir. 1996).

There are a number of reasons why an employer does not have to provide requested information. These include (1) improper request, (2) previously supplied, (3) unavailable, (4)the purpose of the request for information is not necessary to the union's bargaining obligations, (5) relates to nonbargaining unit employee [generally true but not always], (6)events have rendered the request moot, (7)information relates to nonbargainable issues, etc.

There also are issues concerning the manner and the means of providing the information and who will pay the costs of producing the information. see Detroit Edison v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (1979).

The union can also waive its right to information in the CBA. However, the NLRB disfavors such waivers and demands that the waivers by clear and unequivical. Even if the CBA has such a waiver, the NLRB may reject it if the union shows that it needs the information for bargaining a new contract.

As you can see, information requests are complex. I actually find them interesting and intellectually challenging if the employer wants to make the union work for the information.
Vance Miller
Editor, Missouri Employment Law Letter
Armstrong Teasdale LLP
(314) 621-5070
[email]vmiller@armstrongteasdale.com[/email]

Don D

I appreciate and certainly learned from you post. 'Intellectually Challenging'; now there's an interesting concept when regarding most of our interractions with union officials. The exchange is rarely an intellectual exchange, at least not between both parties. I just thought they were pissing contests. I have learned a new approach. x:-)

mrbill

I agree with Vance, and when we received a similar request, we agreed with the provision that the Union would use the list only for union related matters, such as local / national mailings. The agreement states that they cannot sell the list for non-union related matters.

HCA

Thanks for all the help everybody. You're lifesavers! [xclap]

Cross

If the contract is silent, the local(s) have a right to this information. The reason being is that the union has an obligation to represent all the ee's described in their unit. Furthermore, in a right-to-work state, the union also has an obiligation to represent non-union workers.

To not provide this information is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act.

I work for an International Union so if you have any other questions or need further clarification, please send me an email.

Don D

But Cross, don't go overboard in your expectations or understanding of what the union has a right to. There are reasonable limits. Demands cannot be repetitive, unreasonable or seek information to which the local already has access or could readily access on its on or that it would not have a right to. Yes, there are limits. I suggest HR managers/directors seek the guidance of their labor attorney on such issues, not an employee of an international union, although I'm sure your advice would be accurate. x:-) To respond to every request a local has for information would require hiring a full time company clerk just to respond to the whims of the union.

Cross

>But Cross, don't go overboard in your expectations or understanding of
>what the union has a right to. There are reasonable limits. Demands
>cannot be repetitive, unreasonable or seek information to which the
>local already has access or could readily access on its on or that it
>would not have a right to. Yes, there are limits. I suggest HR
>managers/directors seek the guidance of their labor attorney on such
>issues, not an employee of an international union, although I'm sure
>your advice would be accurate. x:-) To respond to every request a
>local has for information would require hiring a full time company
>clerk just to respond to the whims of the union.


Don: I wasn't referring to or trying to answer any other question other than the one that was originally asked and that being, did the HR dept. have to provide the union with the names and addresses of its members and as I correctly stated...yes, it does. It is the law. You might want to be more careful advising HR managers/directors to seek the guidance of their labor attorney on such issues, not an employee of an International union when you yourself stated, "I do wonder why I've been told by two other labor lawyers that we are not obligated to provide company information, including personnel or payroll information, unless specifically bargained for and contained in the CBA." Obviously, you did not know it was the law. No one knows labor law like an International Union President who has spent the last 40 years in the labor movement working his way from the bottom (an hourly ee making paper) to that of a President of the International.

Don D

>Don: I wasn't referring to or trying to answer any other question
>other than the one that was originally asked and that being, did the
>HR dept. have to provide the union with the names and addresses of its
>members and as I correctly stated...yes, it does. It is the law. You
>might want to be more careful advising HR managers/directors to seek
>the guidance of their labor attorney on such issues, not an employee
>of an International union when you yourself stated, "I do wonder why
>I've been told by two other labor lawyers that we are not obligated to
>provide company information, including personnel or payroll
>information, unless specifically bargained for and contained in the
>CBA." Obviously, you did not know it was the law. No one knows labor
>law like an International Union President who has spent the last 40
>years in the labor movement working his way from the bottom (an hourly
>ee making paper) to that of a President of the International.


It's not that I did not know that the law requires the release of SOME LIMITED INFORMATION. What I don't know, even following your elaborate post from a union point of view, is that a company is required to furnish all sorts of ancillary information to meet the momentary whims of a union. A list of employees (covered by the CBA) by hire date with addresses and seniority, fine. The point of this Forum is to educate and more importantly, to learn, not dwell on and point out what others don't know or didn't know, but I have no problem with your goal of doing that. I learn from everybody; even a union official occasionally.

I don't know why you would suggest I be more careful when advising HR Managers to consult their local counsel rather than a union hack. That's exactly what I do and what any responsible HR professional would do or any attorney for that matter, other than an NLRB or plaintiff's attorney. Union officials, even those who have spent the last 40 years wallowing out a comfortable spot in the environment, are not particularly well known for their desire to properly guide the employer community. An HR Manager member should always seek the guidance of the counsel that their employer pays for prior to furnishing any information or producing any records to any requestor. Actually I know lots of really nice union officials. They all have nice bass boats and Crown Vics.

Ethel

Go Don--Go!!!!!!

ritaanz

I sincerely hope that in those 40 years you climbed out of your union circle and explored the world around you. The law, as you know it, is not limited to just union matters. We, in HR, would consider it paradise if we were able to effectively deal with Union agents, reps, presidents. Unfortunately they all seem to have their own narrow agenda and consider us a the "bad guy".

njjel

Ok I'll throw in another aspect. Our CBA requires we give them names, addresses AND social security numbers! (Which I find horrifying!)

vmiller MO

Why? You have to provide this information under the law.

Vance Miller
Editor, Missouri Employment Law Letter
Armstrong Teasdale LLP
(314) 621-5070
[email]vmiller@armstrongteasdale.com[/email]

Don D

VMiller: I plead ignorance. Where, in what law, are we required to furnish social security numbers by sending a list of them to an unknown clerk at some union hall, for unknown use and dissemination? Since you are employer counsel in this area, would you not suggest to us that we should carefully guard such private and 'stealable' information, or at least suggest to us that we not hand it out at the request of a local union officer? To make it simpler for us all, why not simply tell us with a brief list specifically what we are required to furnish in this particular instance. Several posts, including your own, seem to suggest that the employer has very little leeway in refusing union requests for employee information. We would expect that from union counsel. Hopefully you can help out here.