River Oak Center for Children, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

MEMORANDUM *

The National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) found that River Oak Center for Children, Inc. (“River Oak”) violated sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”), Pub.L. No. 74-198, 49 Stat. 449 (1935), codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 , by refusing to provide bargaining unit member addresses and telephone numbers to Social Services Union, Local 535 (the “Union”) during negotiations of a new collective bargaining agreement. The Board granted summary judgment in favor of the Union and ordered River Oak to furnish the information. River Oak petitioned for review. The Union cross-applied for enforcement of the Board’s order.

The parties are familiar with the facts. We proceed to the law. This court upholds decisions of the Board if the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and if it has correctly applied the law. NLRB v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union 112, 992 F.2d 990, 992 (9th Cir.1993). We review questions of law de novo, but give considerable deference to the Board’s expertise in construing and applying the Act. Id.

*679 The Act provides that it is an unfair labor practice for an…

The majority puzzlingly conclude that because employees’ addresses and telephone numbers (“contact information”) are only a portion of the personnel record the CBA requires to be confidential, the lesser is not included in the greater. This logic escapes me. For example, would the majority hold that if a person’s hospital record is privileged from discovery, the results of a potentially embarrassing medical test nevertheless are discoverable because the hospital record includes much more than that test result?

The majority suggests, citing no authority, that River Oak is required to show the CBA “clearly prohibit[s]” River Oak from providing employee address and telephone numbers to the Union. The law requires no such thing. River Oak must merely show the CBA creates a confidentiality interest among employees in their addresses and telephone numbers, justifying its refusal to disclose this confidential information. Retlaw Broadcasting Co. v. NLRB, 172 F.3d 660 , 669-70 (9th Cir.1999) (“An interest in privacy or confidentiality can support an employer’s refusal to produce information to a bargaining representative.”). The interpretation of the CBA— including whether it prohibits…