Peterson v. State
2012 Alas. LEXIS 104
Alaska2012Background
- Alaska state employee Peterson was terminated and pursued grievance proceedings under ASEA's CBA; a non-lawyer ASEA representative handled the grievance and communicated with Peterson's private attorney.
- Peterson later sued for wrongful termination; the State subpoenaed the ASEA representative to depose about the grievance file, including written communications with counsel.
- Superior Court denied Peterson's privilege-based request for a protective order; the court held no union-relations privilege existed and that any attorney-client privilege was waived by disclosure to the union.
- This Court granted review to determine if a union-relations privilege exists in Alaska, whether a court may recognize new privileges, and relevant due process considerations.
- The Alaska Legislature's PERA and related statutes implying protection for confidential union communications during grievance proceedings form the basis for recognizing a union-relations privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a union-relations privilege exists in Alaska | Peterson contends PERA implies a union-relations privilege protecting confidential communications. | State argues no such privilege exists under Alaska law and PERA. | Yes; the union-relations privilege is implied by PERA. |
| Whether existing privileges cover union communications in the grievance context | Attorney-client privilege alone is insufficient to protect union grievance communications. | State relies on existing privileges (e.g., attorney-client) as controlling. | Existing privileges do not cover union grievance communications; a new privilege is warranted. |
| Whether the court has authority to recognize a new privilege outside rule-making | The court may recognize a union-relations privilege under statutory interpretation of PERA. | Privilege recognition is limited to enacted statutes or court rules; no new privilege should be created absent rule-making. | The court has authority to recognize a union-relations privilege. |
| Whether the union-relations privilege should be adopted based on other jurisdictions | Authorities from Cook Paint & Varnish Co., Newburgh, and Seelig support recognizing such a privilege. | Those cases do not compel recognition under Alaska law and differ in context (federal labor law, state adjudication). | Other jurisdictions support a limited privilege, but Alaska adopts a PERA-based, implied union-relations privilege tailored to PERA. |
| Whether due process concerns require or preclude the privilege | Confidential union communications are essential to fair grievance representation and due process. | Discovery in civil suits should generally be available; privilege is not constitutionally required here. | A union-relations privilege is consistent with due process and PERA's framework; confidentiality supports effective representation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Alaska Superior Court, 721 P.2d 617 (Alaska 1986) (recognizing executive privilege as a matter of law)
- City of Newburgh v. Newman, 70 A.D.2d 362 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979) (union member privileges against improper employer inquiry in disciplinary context)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Superior Court, 114 Cal.App.4th 881 (Cal. App. 2003) (limits of union-relations-like considerations under different labor statutes)
- Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281 (Alaska 1979) (early Alaska consideration of privilege foundations)
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (Supreme Court 1981) (attorney-client privilege scope; confidential communications for legal services)