Mon. Jan 24th, 2022

A newly released The document sheds light GoogleAttempts to cancel activism, including a union among its employees. In an order filed Friday, an administrative law judge at the National Labor Relations Board asked Google to advise attorneys representing current and former employees’ documents relating to its “Project Vivian” and to recommend the appointment of a consulting firm. Employers are struggling with unionization efforts.

Google has launched Project Vivian to discourage workers from uniting after workers’ activism heated up in late 2018. The order quoted Michael Pfile, Google’s director of employment law, as describing Project Vivian’s mission, “to engage employees more positively and to convince them that unions are sucking.” Its approach refers to efforts to use the media to propagate peacefully.

Judge Paul Bogas instructed Google to comply with subpoenas for documents related to Project Vivian, as well as to hire Google’s IRI consultants, the anti-union firm. In November, Bogas issued similar orders for Vivian and other documents related to the IRI; Subpona covers more than 1,500 documents.

The subpoena is part of an NLRB case brought in December 2019 by seven Google employees and a former employee. (A former employee has since been dismissed.) Five employees were fired and two were disciplined. To publicize a petition calling on the company. Paul Duke, one of the sacked employees who filed the complaint, said the organization was part of an effort to establish a union.

In response to former employees’ claims that they were fired in retaliation for organizing their workplace, a Google spokesman wrote: “Unification has nothing to do with the underlying lawsuit. This is a violation of clear security protocols for inappropriate access to employees’ confidential information and systems “- a reference to internal documents accessed by employees.

Duke has explicitly denied claims that he and his colleagues violated security protocols, saying the documents were accessible to all engineers and that the company later classified them as “necessary to know”.

In its objection to the subpoena, Google claims attorney-client privileges and “work product privileges”, which protects content prepared in anticipation of a lawsuit. Bogas has rejected many of these claims, calling one claim “charitable, an overrich.” Concerning an attempt to mark a potential union election as a litigation, and therefore particularly privileged, he wrote, “A neo-organized effort among the defendant workers cannot turn an organized litigation into a ‘litigation — as straw is cut into gold যা which gives it the right to cover.” We have privileged every aspect of its anti-union campaign. “

The bogus order cites an effort by Google executives, including corporate counsel Christina Latta, to “find a respectable voice” to outline what a unified technology workplace would look like, and called on Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon and employees. Google is not united. The order states that in an internal message, Google’s human resources director Cara Silverstein told Latta that she liked the idea, “but it should be done so that ‘there is no fingerprint and Google is not specified.'” Provides a proposed draft; It is unknown at this time what he will do after leaving the post.

Source link

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *