Union

Union Whacked with $5.3 Million Verdict for Campaign Lies


Unions have certain free speech rights, just like workers and management.  But a case decided this month is a startling lesson that the limits of such free speech include false and malicious allegations designed to harm the targeted employer.

A Texas jury walloped the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) with a $5.3 million verdict for spreading false and harmful statements about the company, after the business refused to recognize the union without a secret ballot election.  Lawyers for the company said the SEIU used “an intimidating campaign of extortion to try to run the janitorial service out of business,” and targeted the company’s clients with “faked tales of labor complaints,” costing the company millions of dollars in business.  The law recognizes that type of conduct as defamation and tortious interference with contract.  And when that happens, the speaker may be liable for the damages caused.  We assume the SEIU will appeal the ruling.

Michael Homans is a Labor & Employment attorney and founding partner of HomansPeck LLCFor more employment law updates, including news and links to important information pertaining to legal developments that may affect your business, subscribe to Michael’s blog, or follow him on Twitter @EmployLawUpdate.

Standard
Employee Rights, Employer Policy, Employer Rights, National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, Section 7 Rights Under the NLRB, Union

Hats off to the NLRB.

An administrative law judge for the National Labor Relations Board ruled recently that an employer policy prohibiting the wearing of baseball caps other than the employer’s caps violated workers’ Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

This might sound like bald overreaching, but the policy had the effect of precluding employees from displaying union logos or other protected messages on their hats. Under the Act, employees generally are allowed to display union insignia in the workplace, unless the employer can establish a special rule or reason to prohibit them.

In this case, Quad Graphics, Inc., decided July 31, 2013, the employer proffered a hat trick of three reasons for the rule, all of which the judge rejected:
Safety reasons, to keep hair out of machinery — but, alas, the judge found no evidence that union hats were less safe than employer hats;

  1. Fear of gang activity, i.e., that other hats might encourage it — despite the lack of evidence of gang activity (but it sounded good!); and
  2. Better employee-customer interactions — which might have prevailed, but for the lack of any evidence that the workers interacted with customers.

Michael Homans is a Labor & Employment attorney and founding partner of HomansPeck LLCFor more employment law updates, including news and links to important information pertaining to legal developments that may affect your business, subscribe to Michael’s blog, or follow him on Twitter @EmployLawUpdate.

Standard