A trucking company’s internal messaging regarding its employees forming a union was only partially unacceptable, a court ruled.
Employees of Garten Trucking, operating in Virginia, West Virginia, the Carolinas, and Maryland lost an election to unionize in August 2021 by a vote of 65-30. Unionizers then accused Garten of tampering with the election, violating the labor law.
In September 2022, Garten posted on its internal messaging board in response to the employees attempting to form a union and the resulting accusations. The trucking company posted the following message:
“I have been honest with everyone since day 1 and have done everything I can do to try and help all the employees in every area of GT, GT2, Big Island, and the warehouses, and I want you to be the first to know that everything that is in that letter that those worthless pieces of trash put in that paper they handed out is pure horseshit. For them to say they have anything to do with a raise for you all is nothing but a lie. They don’t even get to talk to anyone at the mill. I can’t speak for everyone, but I can say with 100% confidence that I would never let 2 idiots like [Union organizers] Jeff Baker and Miles whatever his name is be in charge of your families [sic] income. I would resign first. As a matter of fact if it wasn’t for them trying to steal money out of your paychecks you would already have your raises.”
In September 2023, the National Labor Relations Board ordered Garten to bargain with the union without a repeat election. In May 2024, the NLRB ordered Garten to cease telling employees that they did not receive raises due to union activity. Garten appealed that ruling, but the appeal was denied.
The 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has since ruled that Garten’s response to the union activities was only partially unacceptable. The court decided that, while rough, the message was legally acceptable until the last line: “As a matter of fact if it wasn’t for them trying to steal money out of your paychecks you would already have your raises.” The court decided that the final line overstepped what Garten was legally allowed to say in advocating against union activities.
“There is a fundamental difference between speech imposing an improper quid pro quo and speech which merely attempts to persuade on the merits, leaving employees free to vote without penalty or reward dangling over their heads,” the court said.
