In Waleed Muhammad v. Association For Higher Education, PERC ruled that the Union retaliated against a non-tenured employee for engaging in protected activity when the Union president submitted negative feedback to the employee’s pre-tenure committee regarding the employee’s demeanor and temperament towards other faculty members. The hearing Examiner reasoned that the Union president’s submission of feedback constituted union interference because the non-tenured employee was not given the chance to discuss the concerns and improve upon them.
Waleed Muhammed is an Economics Professor at Wenatchee Valley College and first began there about a year and a half ago. Muhammad is a member of the Association for Higher Education bargaining unit. As a show of solidarity and union among members, the Association members had a tradition of bringing snacks and refreshments to meetings. On one such occasion, Muhammad collected money from other members and used the funds to supply snacks.
Muhammad sent an email to Association leadership requesting reimbursement for the snacks. Members of the Association board explained to Muhammed that snacks and refreshments are provided by members, and that Association funds are typically not used. Muhammad took issue with this response and replied in a tone in which the participants on the thread described as offensive as “snapping his fingers.” Muhammad was still a pre-tenured employee at this time, and a committee was assembling to decide whether to grant Muhammad tenure. Following this email exchange, Association President, Patrick Tracy, submitted negative comments regarding Muhammad’s demeanor, specifically regarding his emails.
While the hearing Examiner noted that Muhammad’s tone was rude and unprofessional, he concluded that Muhammad was engaging in protected union activity through the email exchange. Namely, he was requested reimbursement for expenditures he believed the Association would pay for. The fact that Tracy then submitted negative comments to the tenure committee was evidence of reprisal for Muhammad’s participation in a protected union activity. The hearing Examiner stated the following,
“Muhammad was not challenging or otherwise behaving abrasively on an issue related to Tracy’s professional abilities… Instead, Muhammad, was challenging Tracy’s representational capacities (i.e., the ability to answer either yes or no on whether union dues could be used to reimburse an employee for negotiation support efforts). Thus, Tracy’s choice to submit a complaint to the tenure committee after Muhammad expressed frustration on a union related issue, rather than a professional issue, substantiates the conclusion that his (Tracy’s) complaint was in reprisal for the former.”
Further, the record indicated that Tracy never offered Muhammad the chance to discuss the concerns about his temperament before submitting the comments to the tenure committee. The Examiner rejected the Association’s argument that Tracy was submitting concerns to the tenure committee as a faculty member rather than as the Union President. The standard for interpretation is from the perspective of the employee. Thus, the Examiner ruled that Muhammad had faced union interference in reprisal for expressing concerns over a union issue.
You may well be wondering how a Wenatchee Community College argument over reimbursement for snacks has much application to your situation. It does a lot so PLEASE HEED THE LESSONS FROM THIS DECISION.
This issue here isn’t about who paid for or should have been paid for snacks at a union meeting. The issue which led the union to suffer a sustained retaliation charge, is that the union argument over snack payment turned into a complaint to the employer.
KEEP YOUR UNION ARGUMENTS IN HOUSE. These discussions are confidential, and when the union gangs up on its own members to ask it to impose adverse actions against one of its members, it’s violating the law.
The key is to know WHICH HAT ARE YOU WEARING? Union members who are also employees are entitled and may be obligated to report on fellow union member workplace violations. But bad behavior inside of union meeting is not a workplace violation. It would be unlawful for an employer to impose discipline for internal union meeting disputes and it’s equally unlawful the union rep to invite the employer into regulate those disputes.
Fortunately, in this case the union didn’t suffer any monetary penalty, only the order to post a notice and retract the complaint. But had the employee here suffered a tenure denial or other monetary loss, it’s possible that the union may have had financial liability. Take care and pay attention to what hat you are wearing at any one time.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on General Standard for Discrimination, General Standard for Interference, and Participation in Union Activity.**
