Your Rights

ent Party

Loudermill Rights

These are hearings prior to decisions by the Agency to suspend, demote or terminate an employee.

In a landmark U. S. Supreme Court case, (Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill), established the right for public sector employees to have a hearing prior to a decision to suspend, demote or terminate. This is based on the employee’s "property right" to his or her public-sector job.

Garrity Rights
FIFTH AMENDMENT APPLIES TO INTERROGATIONS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 
(“GARRITY RIGHTS”) 

Public employees have certain constitutional rights that apply in their employment that may not apply to private employees. For example, in Garrity v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court held that statements obtained in the course of an investigatory interview under threat of termination from public employment couldn’t be used as evidence against the employee in subsequent criminal proceedings. If, however, you refuse to answer questions after you have been assured that your statements cannot be used against you in a subsequent criminal proceeding, the refusal to answer questions thereafter may lead to the imposition of discipline for insubordination. Further, while the statements you make may not be used against you in a subsequent criminal proceeding, they can still form the basis for discipline on the underlying work-related charge.
To ensure that your Garrity rights are protected, you should ask the following questions:

If you are asked to provide a written statement regarding the subject of the interview, the following statement should be included in your report:

“It is my understanding that this report is made for internal administrative purposes only. This report is made by me after being ordered to do so by my supervisor. It is my understanding that refusing to provide this report could result in my being disciplined for insubordination up to and including termination of employment. This report is made pursuant to that order and the potential discipline that could result for failing to provide this report.”

Weingarten Rights

 This is the right of employees to have Union representation present during investigatory interviews. An investigatory interview occurs when a supervisor questions an employee to obtain information that could be used as a basis for discipline or asks an employee to defend his/her conduct. If an employee has reason to believe that discipline or some other adverse consequence may result from he/she says, then the employee has the right to request Union representation.

NOTE: Management is not required to inform the employee of their Weingarten rights; it is the employees responsibility to know it and request Union representation. Once an employee makes the request for a Union representative to be present, management has three options: 

1.  Stop the questioning until representation arrives 

2.  Call off the interview 

3.  Tell the employee that it will call off the interview unless the employee voluntarily gives up his/her rights to Union representation (which of course, the employee should always refuse to do).

 The employer will often times assert that the role of a Union steward in an investigatory interview is to observe the discussion, however, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly acknowledges a Union’s right to assist and even counsel the employee during the interview. The Supreme Court has also ruled that during the interview, the employer must inform the Union regarding the subject of the interview. The Union also has the ability to speak privately with the employee prior to the interview. During the questioning, the Union rep can interrupt to clarify a question or object to intimidating tactics on the employers part. The Union rep cannot tell the employee what to say during the interview but may advise them on how to respond to a question. Additionally, at the end, the Union rep may add information that is supportive of the employee.