The Alphabet Workers Union filed a charge against Google with the National Labor Relations Board after Google management asked employees to “refrain” from speaking out about its ongoing Search antitrust case.
The union charges that Google issued an “overly broad directive” to discuss the matter with employees, according to a copy of the charge filed in August and seen by threshold. On August 5th, just after US District Court Judge Amit Mehta issued his ruling finding that Google had an illegal monopoly, global affairs president Kent Walker sent an email (also reviewed by threshold) instructing employees to “please refrain from commenting on this case, both internally and externally.” Walker sent a similar message at the start of the trial last fall, Business Insider reported at the time.
That could be a problem for Google if the NLRB concludes that Walker’s directive can chill protected concerted activity: actions by two or more employees together that are protected by labor law, such as discussing working conditions. “I could certainly imagine that there would be ways that the issue would eventually affect working conditions,” says Charlotte Garden, a professor at the University of Minnesota who specializes in labor law. The DOJ has since suggested that remedying Google’s anticompetitive damages could mean something as drastic as a split of its Android and Chrome businesses — something that could result in significant changes for workers in those units.
“We respect the rights of Google employees to speak out about their terms and conditions of employment”
However, Garden says there are some discussions employees may have about the case that may not be protected, such as pondering how management should respond to the government. The NLRB will also weigh Google’s legitimate business interests—perhaps including controlling the flow of their litigation or only authorizing specific spokespeople to speak on behalf of the company—and how likely management’s statements are to quell chatter. protected among employees.
“We respect the rights of Google employees to speak out about their terms and conditions of employment,” Google spokesman Peter Schottenfels said in a statement to threshold. “As is standard practice, we are simply asking that employees not speak about ongoing litigation on behalf of Google without prior approval.”
Although Walker’s email did not include an outright ban on speaking about the antitrust case, the NLRB could consider it a violation if it concludes it is likely to silence employee speech, Garden says. The board will assess how employees did and are likely to interpret the email – either as a blanket directive not to be followed or as a line not to cross or risk getting into trouble or giving up future opportunities, she says. To do that, Garden explains, the NLRB will look at workers’ own reactions and interpretations of the directives and how the company has responded when workers have challenged such a directive in the past.
“I think the company has a history of silencing or retaliating against workers who speak up about their working conditions or raise complaints”
Stephen McMurtry, a senior software engineer at Google and head of communications for the Alphabet Workers Union, sees his employer’s previous actions as a warning. “I think the company has a history of silencing or retaliating against workers who speak up about their working conditions or file complaints with the company about things they believe are wrong or unethical. So even if the language is a corporate “please refrain,” I think we can all see what has happened to some of our colleagues in the past who have raised concerns about various issues.
McMurtry pointed to the mass exodus of 2018 in the wake of the #MeToo movement. Two of the organizers claimed retaliation for their role in the demonstration (which Google denied) and eventually left the company. Another former Google engineer said threshold in 2019 she was fired for creating a browser pop-up for employees informing them of their job protection. A Google spokesperson at the time would not confirm the employee’s termination, saying that they had fired someone who “abused privileged access to modify an internal security tool” but that it was not a matter of its content. . “It doesn’t seem that far-fetched that it could happen in this situation,” McMurtry says.
McMurtry doesn’t really know what his colleagues think about the outcome of the case and what legal remedies might affect their work because he says it hasn’t really been discussed. He doesn’t have much of an opinion on the remedies the DOJ has suggested so far, either, but says being able to talk about it with his colleagues would make it easier to reach an informed opinion about the potential effects on workers. .
The case may take some time to resolve, if the NLRB even decides to take it up. Garden says a regional office would first investigate the charge to determine whether to proceed with it — though many cases are resolved before that happens. said NLRB spokeswoman Kayla Blado threshold that its Oakland office is investigating the charge, which was filed on Aug. 15. The NLRB says it typically takes seven to 14 weeks to determine the merits of a charge, which could launch a case before an administrative law judge if the government decides to pursue it. Meanwhile, Google and the Justice Department are set to return to court in April to discuss what remedies that judge should impose to fix Google’s anti-competitive effects.
