Federal: Union Tee Shirt Federal

[Buzzard3006]

I had items (1) and (2) posted on another legal forum having several licensed attorneys within the particular state that the forum was within, but have not received any comments on the topic.

I just wanted to get a “take” on this from other people. So I have posted it here. Sorry about the length of this posting. Let us assume the employee was terminated from a private contractor working for a private industrial client. Had it been ok to fire this dude, or not….?

(1) Recently there arose an issue where a union tradesman was terminated from his job (noncompliance of company policy) for wearing a tee shirt on the job with a non-discriminatory statement of his union membership on the shirt. I understand that a private contractor can enforce company policies with a disregard for the First Amendment….(see item 2 below).But there is also
29 U.S.C 158 which states in-part:

"......to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it: Provided, That subject to rules and regulations made and published by the Board pursuant to section 156 of this title, an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay..."

(2) Bill of Rights Amendment 1
CRS Annotated Constitution, Amendment 1
Quasi-Public Places 1171


“Quasi–Public Places.—The First Amendment precludes government restraint of expression and it does not require individuals to turn over their homes, businesses or other property to those wishing to communicate about a particular topic. But it may be that in some instances private property is so functionally akin to public property that private owners may not forbid expression upon it………”

[ScottB]

So, your complaint is that an employee was discharged for wearing a union tee-shirt while at work in a non-union company.

Does not bother me in the least.

There is no violation of the First Amendment or the NLRA.

That you have not been contacted by attorney's willing to take the case should be a clue.

[Buzzard3006]

This seems to be a law forum, which means that if you don`t know specific statues and\or codes and/or cases to base an argument on…..I have absolutely no regard for your unsolicited, personal opinion based on some type of personnel grievance against unions and/or the NLRB (“B” as in Board….not “A)) and/or the Constitution of the US.

Why should an attorney contact me? But, I`ll help you connect the dots: The “employee” (which is not me) has a private attorney on the case who has told this “employee” (which is not me) to follow the correct protocols. That is, to file grievance (er, like a complaint signed by a union office, and must be acted on….NLRB mandate by codeHis local union has an attorney on full time retainer….”retainer” meaning the attorney is there when needed.

I had wished to hear opinions from professional people connected to the profession of law. This being a subject of interest to me. Being that it IS a violation of the NLRB code (there has never been a question of that by the NLRB legal branch); but if it is not a violation of the First Amendment (private sector of business)….which has the most jurisdiction (bearing) on the case.

[cbg]

Buzzard, this is a public forum. You do not get to choose who will and will not respond.

You are free to disregard any posts with with you disagree, but you cannot control who does and does not answer.

[Buzzard3006]

Yelp, you are correct. Although the interruption is not……I do not object to who is posting, but what they are posting. I don`t see a “delete” button on my side. People may be “junior” to this particular law forum, but ‘honored” on another. I am after an answer that was not provided on another forum. This is constitutional law, it ain`t for everyone.

[cbg]

Junior and Senior membership is solely based on the number of posts they have made.

[Buzzard3006]

Not a problem.
I`m very content on listening to a possible debate on the topic. If I knew the answer, why, I would have never posted the topic. We have lawyers that moderate and own the “other” forum, and they hesitate with law connected to the First Amendment. As I am NOT a lawyer, I…we…can be more at, er, liberty. I believe that I carry the ‘honored” label because I know when to keep my mouth shut. And listen.

So, I am waiting, in humble silence (well, maybe not humble…..).

[ScottB]

I have absolutely no regard for your unsolicited, personal opinion based on some type of personnel grievance against unions and/or the NLRB (“B” as in Board….not “A)) and/or the Constitution of the US.

Personal, not personnel.

Not unsolicited. You posted, so you asked for my opinion.

NLRA = National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB is the body that administers the act.

When you get a clue, I may return.

[Buzzard3006]

Then clue me in.
If you can, that is. Prove yer point (and, point being?)

[sposito]

first amendment rights in the workplace

Buzz,

Your first amendment rights do not apply in the private workplace.

Private property rights trump your right to free speech and freedom of association.

Welcome to the United States of America,

Home of the free and captive of corporate interests.

Ever wonder why American immigration to Canada is at an all time high?

Eric

[cyjeff]

Your first admendment rights absolutely apply in the workplace. In the private and public sectors. On the street, in the schools and anywhere else you happen to be in the home of the free and land of the brave.

You will not be imprisoned by the government for wearing a t-shirt. The person in question was not led away in handcuffs. The person in question was not arrested.

Therefore, his first admendment rights were protected.

If you are wondering if first admendment rights means that you do not have to take responsibility for your actions from people and entities not related to government, just say "yes" the next time she asks if these pants make her butt look big. Trust me, there will be penalties involved.

The first admendment does not mean you can say anything at any time and not be held responsible for saying those things. If this was the case, there wouldn't be any civil law around slander and libel.

[TSCompliance]

The government did not punish the guy from wearing his "expressive" T shirt, a private employer did.

Here's the first Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't matter whose property he was on, public, private, or quasi-public. the employer terminated him for violating a company policy. The important thing is that he was on their clock/payroll, not that he was on their property.

[sposito]

wonderfull

So the government won’t take you away for expressing your right to association or expression but your employer gets to commit economic capital punishment for you exercising your right to freedom of association or speech.

Why don’t you explain that to the group of people that just found themselves unemployed for exercising their first amendment rights to associate with whomever they want.

Oh yeah, and the people that just lost their jobs are free to hire an attorney at great expense and sue a well healed company. My god, you don’t see the problem here do you?

Forgive me for the trouble I have seeing the difference.
Its funny how this doesn’t work the same way in the rest of the industrialized world. Oh yeah, they got it wrong and we got it right.

[ScottB]

Ever wonder why American immigration to Canada is at an all time high?

Nope, I never wondered since I never heard that before. Prove it to me that such is the case.

[Buzzard3006]

Company policy would have to be within certain legal bounds. To fine-tune this, you can well understand that an employer could`nt state that it is not their policy to hire those people “of color” or those who associate with people of color (too say, non-white). As most non-whites are within a protected class, they could file discrimination charges. Point being, is that union members are within the same class, that is, “protected”. If a union employee was terminated for expressing his views on any other subject not related to “union”, and contrary to company policy---he or she would be done….. But union “views”, broadly speaking, are protected.

If a non-union employee objected from his protection afforded by the First, he or she could be countered by the protected class provision afforded to the union employee.

Don`t forget the many amendments to the First……

Am I missing something?