Google Illegally Spied On And Retaliated Against Workers, Feds Say

December 4, 2020 TH Author headline,government,privacy,usa,fraud,google

Google’s actions amid workplace organizing efforts, including the high-profile firings of several employees, were illegal violations of the National Labor Relations Act, federal regulators said this week.

The National Labor Relations Board filed a formal complaint (PDF) against Google Wednesday, alleging that the company has been “interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees” to interfere with their protected concerted activity—workplace organization rights that are protected by law.

Google fired several different workers late last year amid apparent efforts to organize company employees. Four former employees who were let go last November—Laurence Berland, Paul Duke, Rebecca Rivers, and Sophie Waldman—filed complaints with the NLRB almost exactly a year ago alleging that Google’s “draconian, pernicious, and unlawful conduct” was an unlawful attempt to prevent workplace organizing.

A few weeks later, another former Google employee, Kathryn Spiers, was fired after she developed a tool for the company’s internal build of Chrome that notified Google workers of their legal rights to organize. Spiers, too, filed a complaint with the NLRB claiming that Google’s retaliation against her was unlawful.

Google at the time alleged that Rivers, Berland, and others were fired for “intentional and often repeated violations of our longstanding data security policies.” According to the NLRB’s filing, however, Google put several of the rules the employees allegedly violated in place in response to the employee organizing efforts, and those rules were designed to “discourage employees from forming, joining, [or] assisting a union.” The company also unlawfully surveilled employees’ protected activities by viewing an employee slide deck in support of a union drive, as well as by interrogating employees about protected activities.

“Google’s hiring of IRI is an unambiguous declaration that management will no longer tolerate worker organizing,” Berland said in a statement, referring to Google bringing on the infamous union-busting firm as consultants in late 2019. “Management and their union busting cronies wanted to send that message, and the NLRB is now sending their own message: worker organizing is protected by law.”

Google issued a statement supporting its actions, again placing blame squarely on the former employees. “Google has always worked to support a culture of internal discussion, and we place immense trust in our employees,” a company spokesperson said. “Employees have protected labor rights that we strongly support, but we have always taken information security very seriously. We’re confident in our decision and legal position. Actions undertaken by the employees at issue were a serious violation of our policies and an unacceptable breach of a trusted responsibility.”

Not the first time

In terms of process, the NLRB’s complaint is somewhat similar to either a lawsuit in civil court or an indictment in criminal court. From here, Google and the regulator either settle the case or else it goes to an in-house trial before one of the NLRB’s administrative law judges. The complaint sets a hearing date for April 12 of next year, either in person or by video conference, if there is no settlement reached by that time.

Tensions between Google and its workers have been running high for several years. In 2018, thousands of employees staged a walkout to protest Google’s handling of sexual-harassment allegations against senior executives. Two employees who helped organize the 2018 mass walkout, Meredith Whittaker and Claire Stapleton, said in 2019 that they were facing retaliation from their employer. Both left the company that summer.

Neither is this Google’s first tangle with the NLRB. In 2019, the company and the regulator reached a settlement after a previous complaint. That settlement required Google to explain to employees the rights they have under federal labor law and to tell employees they would not be retaliated against for exercising those rights.