[US] Google cannot cloak ‘antiunion campaign’ documents

A judge appointed by the National Labor Relations Board in the US ruled that Google must turn over some 180 documents related to an internal campaign to fight union organising efforts by employees as part of an ongoing NLRB case against the internet giant. And now further details of their contents have emerged, The Verge reports.

A Google attorney described the ongoing effort - Dubbed Project Vivian - between 2018 and 2020 as a way to “engage employees more positively and convince them that unions suck,” according to one of the documents.

The documents are part of a case brought by the NLRB against Google in December 2020, which alleged that Google violated US labour law by spying on and firing employees who were organising protests and trying to unionise. 

Former Google employee Laurence Berland, fired in 2019, was reportedly organising against the company’s hiring of IRI Consultants, a firm known for its union-busting efforts. He said he was fired for looking at other employees’ calendars, breaking a Google policy that the NLRB found to be unlawful. 

Former Google employee Kathryn Spiers said she was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees who visited the IRI Consultants website. The company claimed Ms Spiers had violated security policies, but the NLRB found that her firing was also unlawful.

Google tried to claim attorney-client privilege to shield some of the documents that were subpoenaed in the case. But administrative law Judge Paul Bogas said Google’s “broad assertion, is, to put it charitably, an overreach,” according to a January 7 order obtained by The Verge following a Freedom of Information Act request. 

Bogas wrote in his ruling that IRI provided Google with “anti-union messaging and message amplification strategies” that were tailored to Google’s workforce, but IRI didn’t give Google legal advice that would be protected by attorney-client privilege.

He added that Google had CC’d its legal counsel on documents that would not be considered privileged otherwise, in what appeared to be an effort to try to keep the documents private. The judge said Google “cannot spin the mere fact of a nascent organising effort among employees into ‘litigation’ - like straw spun into gold - that entitles it to cloak in privilege every aspect of its anti-union campaign.”

In an email to The Verge, Google spokesperson Jennifer Rodstrom said that it considers the underlying case to be unrelated to unionisation efforts but rather that “it’s about employees breaching clear security protocols to access confidential information and systems inappropriately.” She added that IRI was one of “dozens of outside consultants” Google works with.

If Google loses the case, it may be forced to pay back wages to Mr Berland and Ms Spiers and rehire them.

Source: The Verge

(Links and quotes via original reporting)

A judge appointed by the National Labor Relations Board in the US ruled that Google must turn over some 180 documents related to an internal campaign to fight union organising efforts by employees as part of an ongoing NLRB case against the internet giant. And now further details of their contents have emerged, The Verge reports.

A Google attorney described the ongoing effort - Dubbed Project Vivian - between 2018 and 2020 as a way to “engage employees more positively and convince them that unions suck,” according to one of the documents.

The documents are part of a case brought by the NLRB against Google in December 2020, which alleged that Google violated US labour law by spying on and firing employees who were organising protests and trying to unionise. 

Former Google employee Laurence Berland, fired in 2019, was reportedly organising against the company’s hiring of IRI Consultants, a firm known for its union-busting efforts. He said he was fired for looking at other employees’ calendars, breaking a Google policy that the NLRB found to be unlawful. 

Former Google employee Kathryn Spiers said she was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees who visited the IRI Consultants website. The company claimed Ms Spiers had violated security policies, but the NLRB found that her firing was also unlawful.

Google tried to claim attorney-client privilege to shield some of the documents that were subpoenaed in the case. But administrative law Judge Paul Bogas said Google’s “broad assertion, is, to put it charitably, an overreach,” according to a January 7 order obtained by The Verge following a Freedom of Information Act request. 

Bogas wrote in his ruling that IRI provided Google with “anti-union messaging and message amplification strategies” that were tailored to Google’s workforce, but IRI didn’t give Google legal advice that would be protected by attorney-client privilege.

He added that Google had CC’d its legal counsel on documents that would not be considered privileged otherwise, in what appeared to be an effort to try to keep the documents private. The judge said Google “cannot spin the mere fact of a nascent organising effort among employees into ‘litigation’ - like straw spun into gold - that entitles it to cloak in privilege every aspect of its anti-union campaign.”

In an email to The Verge, Google spokesperson Jennifer Rodstrom said that it considers the underlying case to be unrelated to unionisation efforts but rather that “it’s about employees breaching clear security protocols to access confidential information and systems inappropriately.” She added that IRI was one of “dozens of outside consultants” Google works with.

If Google loses the case, it may be forced to pay back wages to Mr Berland and Ms Spiers and rehire them.

Source: The Verge

(Links and quotes via original reporting)