Regents of the University of California, University of California Los Angeles (PERB A106H)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
REGENTS 	OF 	THE 	UNIVERSITY 	OF
CALIFORNIA, 	UCLA ,
Employer,
and
AMERICAN 	FEDERATION 	OF 	TEACHERS,
LOCAL 	1990,
Employee 	Organization,
and
FACULTY ASSOCIATION AT 	UCLA,
Employee 	Organization.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
___________________ )
Case 	No. 	SF-PC-1040
PERB 	Order 	No. 	Ad- 1U6-H
ADMINISTRATIVE 	APPEAL
Aprii 	2, 	1981
Appearances: 	James 	N. 	Odle, 	Associate 	Counsel 	for 	Regents 	of
the 	University 	of 	California.
Before 	Gluck, 	Chairperson; 	Jaeger, 	Moore 	and 	Tovar, 	Members~
ORDER
The 	University 	of 	California 	at 	Los 	Angeles 	appeals 	a
denial 	by 	the 	Regional 	Director 	of 	a 	request 	for 	statistical
election 	data 	prior 	to 	a 	runoff 	election. 	The 	University, 	a
group 	of 	faculty 	members 	opposed 	to 	collective 	bargaining 	and
the 	UCLA 	Faculty 	Association 	all 	seek 	information 	about 	the
number 	of 	ballots 	cast 	in 	each 	department 	in 	the 	original
election. 	The 	Regional 	Director 	denied 	requesters 	the
information 	stating 	that 	the 	Board 	had 	never 	provided 	this 	type
of 	information 	in 	the 	past 	and 	that 	providing 	the 	data 	in 	this

case
	would 	open 	up 	a
	flood
	of 	requests
	for
	such
	information 	in
the
	future.
The
	requesters
	all
	have 	a
	vested
	interest
	in
	the
	outcome
	of
the 	runoff
	election.
	Requesters
	have
	offered
	no
	reason
	for
wanting
	the 	information
	other
	than
	it
	could
	be
	"useful"
	prior
to 	the 	runoff
	election.
The
	PERE
	seeks
	to 	insure
	that
	an
	election 	will
	be
	conducted
under
	conditions
	which
	will
	reflect
	the
	true 	desires 	of
	the
employees.
	Confidentiality of
	the
	balloting
	process
	is
	of
utmost 	importance
	to
	an
	election
	and
	goes
	beyond
	protecting
	the
anonymity
	of 	individual 	voters.
	The 	Board
	finds
	it
inappropriate 	to
	allow
	requesters
	with
	an
	interest
	in 	the
outcome
	of
	the
	election
	to
	use
	the 	agency's
	confidential
material
	to
	potentially 	affect
	the
	outcome
	of 	the
	election.
Election
	data
	could
	possibly
	be
	released
	under 	some
circumstances,
	but
	not,
	as
	here,
	where
	it
	was
	sought
	during 	the
election.
In
	Getman
	v.
	NLRB
	(1971 	D.C.
	Cir.)
	450
	F.2d
	670 	[78
	LRRM
2101], 	the 	Court
	of
	Appeals
	ordered 	the 	National
	Labor
Relations
	Board
	to
	accede
	to
	a
	request 	pursuant 	to 	the
	Freedom
of
	Information
	Act 	and
	to 	release
	names 	arid
	addresses 	of
prospective 	voters 	to
	a 	group
	of 	impartial 	investigators
studying
	Board
	processes.
	The 	Court
	stressed 	that 	the
	ruling
was
	specific 	to 	the
	FOIA
	request, 	that
	the 	investigators
	were
engaged 	in
	an 	independent 	empirical 	study 	of
	Board
	processes
2

and
	that
	great
	care
	was
	taken
	to
	avoid
	interfering
	with
	the
election.
	The
	Court
	also
	emphasized
	that
	the 	voting
	employees
were
	free 	to 	refuse 	to
	accept 	the
	investigator's
	telephone
calls
	or
	to
	talk
	with 	the
	investigators.
	Getman
	is
	based
	on
facts
	dissimilar 	to
	those
	of 	the
	instant
	case,
	and
	we
	find
	it
is
	distinguishable.
The
	Board
	affirms
	the
	Regional
	Director's
	denial 	of 	the
University's
	request
	for 	the 	reasons
	stated
	above.
PER
CURIAM
3

STArc
o;:
C..!.Ll~NIA
?:J3UC i;hi?l.-OY,\r1~HT
R.:LATJo;--;s
3-0A~!)
Sen
F.-oncis..;:o
Regionoi
Offke
177 Post St., 9th Floor
'Sen Frondsco, Califomio
	94i08
(415) 557-13.50
--
..
December
29,
	1980
Mr.	
Rarold
W.
	Hor~~itz
Vice-Chancellor 	for Faculty
Relations
University
of
	California,
	Los
	Angeles
Office of
	the
	Cnancellor
Los
	Angeles,
	California
	90024
Re: 	SF-?C-1040
Dear
M=.	
Horowitz:
Your
request
	for
	statistical
	information regarding
voter
	turn.-
out	
by
schoolsr
	colleges,
	and
divisions
	~-as
	receiv~
by
	this
of:ice
on December
22,
	1980.
It
has
been
our policy
	to
	release
	only
	such
	statistical
data
rega~ding
elections
~ilich
appears
	on
	the Tally of
Ballots.
	I
c.;.,,,::
appreciate
	that
	the
	requested
	information
would
	be
helpfulto
	ali
parties
	to
an
election
and
	that
	compiling the
	data
	in
th:..:.
	particular election
might
not
be unreasonably
burdensomet-"?O.'.l.
tha 	agancy.
	T"::ie
Public
Employment:
Relations
Board
has
ho~ev~r, 	conducted
over
775
	elections
	to data
	and
will
	no
	doubt
be
	conducting
many more
	in
the
	future.
	Furthernore,
	many
ofthe
	upcoming
	elections 	to
be conducted u~der
SEERA
will
be
large
statewide
elections
	and
other elections
undar
REER..-\
could
potentially
be systemwide, 	depending
upon
the
	outcome
of
	the
unit
	deterr::ri.nation
process.
Providing
you
Yith the
	requested 	infor.:iatioa
would
set
	a
precedent
w-hich would be
	impossible
	for
	us
	to 	follow
	in future
elections.
	I
	a~
therefore denying your
request.
An	
appeal of
	this
	decision
maybe made
	to 	the
Board.
	itself
within
10
calendar
days
	of service of this
	letter
by
	filing
	a
statement of
	the
	facts
	upon which
	the appeal
	is
based with 	the
Executive
Assistant
	to 	the
Board
	at
	923 12th
Street,
	Suite
	201,
Sacramento,
	California
95814. 	Copies
	of
	any
appeal must be
concurrently served
on
all parties
	and
	the
	San
Francisco
Regional Office.
	Proof
of Service of 	the appeal
must be
	filedwith the Executive Assistant.
Should you have any
questions concerning 	this matter, 	please
contact
me.
Very truly yours,•
James ·w. Tan:zo.
Regional Director
TT~•.;,-
STArc
o;:
C..!.Ll~NIA