Public Employees - First Amendment Rights

Hunter1

OK, those of you familiar with public sector: We have a small group of employees who are disgruntled (easiest way to put it). They formed a union which has been sanctioned by the state. Yesterday when visiting a couple of their cubicles I found the following kinds of items: a 'desertion pool' where employees are betting on who will be the next to leave, a posting which I don't remember the exact words of, but which says something like 'I've been lied to, taken advantage of, underpaid, etc, and the only reason I'm sticking around is to see what will happen next', a list of sayings which are derogatory to employers in general, etc. We don't have a rule against personal items in cubicles, and don't want one, but contractors and other members of the public visit these cubicles, and it has to give them the wrong impression (At least wrong from my point of view).
Am I right that we could disallow this type of posting under the balancing test of the Pickering v Board of Education case or other law?

Don't everyone answer at once, there's room for all!

SMace

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-26-03 AT 03:24PM (CST)[/font][p]I work for a private employer that is not unionized, so I will not be much help. However, do you have rules against betting pools? As far as I understand it is illegal gambling and they could be disciplined for that. I'm sure that will really cheer them up. x}>

Before you do that, be sure you do not allow those pools across the board.

Don D

This is one for your attorney Hunter1. We might have a similar question if a union member wore a T-Shirt emblazoned with "I Work For An A-Hole". What might the employer be able to do about that?

Hunter1

That one would be easy for me: We do have a rule against wearing any clothing with a commercial, vulgar, or obscene message.

WT

A public employee will not relinquish first amendment rights to comment on matters of "PUBLIC INTEREST" simply because of their government employment. However, the employees do not have an unlimited right to free speech. Here are the issues to look at:
1. Does the speech disrupt the office.
2. Does it have a detrimental effect on working relationships.
3. Does it impede the daily work.
4. Does it undermine the authority of the supervisors.

If speech does these things, you should explain that to your employees and regulate that aspect of their little postings. Remember, some management employees believe that going into a union will free them from all restraint and discipline. You need to put a stop to that legend from day one or many more serious issues will soon be at your door. Good luck.

Don D

Remember, some
>management employees believe that going into a union will free them
>from all restraint and discipline. You need to put a stop to that
>legend from day one or many more serious issues will soon be at your
>door. Good luck.


You're right...not 'all restraint and discipline'. But one hell of a lot of it.

Shadowfax

WT has the right idea. Pickering tells us that to be protected, speech must be a matter of public concern, and, the employees interest in making the statement outweighs the interest of the state as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public service it performs through its employees. The governmental employer need not wait until office relationships are undermined before taking action, but if action is taken before demonstrable damage occurs, a bigger burden of proof is required. As a practical matter, sometinmeas the less said or done the better. We once had the entire workforce wearing slogans and foolish getups during a particularly rancorous negotiations, and we did nothing. The fact that no one even mentioned their shenigans to them made them abandon the whole scheme in a few days. We are all either employer or employee. Either way, we recognize that our force is rarely happy, and if we see someone else complaining, we take it with a grain of salt. I think you run risk of doing greater damage to relationship if you take action than if you ignore. Easy for me to say, I', 500 miles away!

Hunter1

Shadow & WT - Thanks for the input. Your two posts delineate my dilemma, whether it is best to leave it die of natural causes, or by doing so, am I only encouraging the behavior. Well, we're having our last negotiating session before mediation/arbitration tomorrow (thank your lucky stars you don't have to deal with that beast!), so maybe things will be all better then. NOT!!

Beave

Just wondering - how did the mediation/arbitration turn out on this issue???

Hunter1

It wasn't on this issue, but, rather, on the labor agreement as a whole. Unfortunately, we still haven't gotten any further than my last post. The union is still 'considering' my last offer.