UNION UNFAIR PRACTICES;RESTRAINT, COERCION, INTERFERENCE OR DISCRIMINATION – Other

Single Topic for Decision 2782M

View all topics for Decision 2782M

Full Decision Text (click on the link to view): Full Text

The California Public Records Act (CPRA; Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.) was enacted “for the explicit purpose of ‘increasing freedom of information.’” (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 651, internal citations omitted.) Invoking the CPRA—whether via litigation or via correspondence that could lead to litigation—normally should not constitute interference except where such acts are baseless and taken in bad faith, as set forth in Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB (1983) 461 U.S. 731. Union’s CPRA request was not baseless where precedent does not clearly demonstrate whether union sought records that were exempt, in whole or in part, pursuant to CPRA section 6254, subdivision (c) and section 6255, subdivision (a). Furthermore, charging parties failed to object to disclosure after receiving Marken notices, which provided them with notice of the pending CPRA request and the opportunity to file a “reverse-CPRA” lawsuit seeking to restrict disclosure, or to otherwise suggest that any part of the request was overbroad. (Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1250.) After charging parties failed to raise any issue, the District proceeded to produce the documents, and as a result, the union’s request was 100 percent successful.