Mayor and Fire Chief Calling Union Leaders “Punk Ass White Boys” and “Racist” Was Labor Law Violation

From the Ohio State Employment Relations Board in In re City of Youngstown, decided in December by Chair W. Craig Zimpher, Vice Chair Sandra Drabik Collins, and Board Member Robert Walter, but just posted on Westlaw:

1. City violated RC 4117.11(A)(1) when Fire Chief yelled at, physically threatened, uttered racially oriented names (i.e., “punk ass white boys”), and accused Union President and Vice President of being “racist” when they requested information about, and demanded to bargain over, effects of offering EMT class to bargaining unit employees, constituting restraint and coercion in exercise of rights guaranteed to them.
2. City violated RC 4117.11(A)(1) when Mayor publicly labeled two Union leaders as being racist for engaging in lawful actions, likely causing reputational harm, and restraining their continued protected activity.
3. City violated RC 4117.11(A)(3) when Mayor condoned Fire Chief’s conduct and ratified his views in media. More likely than not, this led to negative characterization of Captains by at least one citizen and at least one Union member. This, in turn, caused each official to have to defend his reputation for merely exercising his duty as Union officer. This reputational harm constituted a change in conditions of employment for Union President and Vice President, because Mayor’s conduct specifically harmed their protected right to maintain their good reputation….

The relevant statutory provisions, from Ohio Rev. Code 4117.11, read:

(A) It is an unfair labor practice for a public employer, its agents, or representatives to:

(1) Interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code or an employee organization in the selection of its representative for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances; …

(3) Discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment on the basis of the exercise of rights guaranteed by Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code….

The Board adopted the proposed order from Administrative Law Judge Raymond Geis, which concluded in part:

Respondent sent an email to all employees announcing that an emergency medical technician “EMT” class would be offered to all firefighters. Respondent did not share any information ahead of time with the Union about the class before the general announcement. Sign-up for the class was voluntary. Then-Union President Racco and Vice President (“VP”) Thomas requested a meeting to discuss the EMT class offering and discuss how it may affect the firefighters’ terms and conditions of employment. During a September 6, 2024, meeting, the Union demanded to bargain effects of the EMT class offering including, inter alia, scheduling/sign-up, compensation for attendance, and compensation for members filling in for attendees’ regular posts.

In response, Respondent’s agent, Chief Finley, called the Union Leaders ‘punk ass white boys’ and ‘little white bitches,’ said that he was ‘tired of you white boys,’. He accused the Union Leaders of only wanting to negotiate because Chief Finley was black, and accused the Union Leaders of being racist, then proceeded to state, ‘I am so tired of you white boys constantly coming after me for no reason and it just never stops,’ After VP Thomas responded that he was not a racist, he told VP Thomas, ‘[y]ou know who always says that, a racist.’

Chief Finley further stated that he didn’t have to bargain anything about the EMT class because it was voluntary. Chief Finley was yelling his comments and stood up across the table in a manner reasonably perceived to create an apprehension of assault. It took two deputy law directors to get the Chief to leave the room. This demonstrates that the Chief lost emotional self-control, without legal provocation, during a legitimate collective bargaining meeting.

Respondent’s Mayor ratified Chief Finley’s conduct when he spoke with a reporter for The Vindicator and in the resulting article, stated that the union leaders disrespected him as “an African-American fire chief”, and by stating “there’s some racial issues there” and indicating the white union officials don’t recognize that they are being racist toward him….

Neither Racco nor Jordan ran for reelection to their Union officer positions due in substantial part to reasonably perceived reputational harm from media coverage of the dispute exacerbated by the Mayor’s comments. The Mayor’s comments to the The Vindicator effectively excused Chief Finley’s conduct during a bargaining meeting and falsely labeled the Union as racially prejudiced because it sought relevant information and demanded to bargain with Respondent (even though these acts constituted lawful exercise of its rights guaranteed under R.C. 4117)….

[T]he record conclusively establishes that the Chief’s conduct overwhelmingly steered the meeting off course and undermined any possibility of sharing information and/or reaching agreement. Chief Finley’s comments standing alone are inherently coercive and are reasonably calculated to frustrate collective bargaining and/or assertion of collective bargaining rights.

The Mayor’s public justification of Chief Finley’s conduct and ratification of his view that the union leaders were being “racist” was discriminatory toward Racco and Thomas solely due to their status as Union officers. But for the men’s role as union representatives asserting protected rights on behalf of those they represent, their reputation would not have been besmirched by Chief Finley or the Mayor. These Union men’s terms and conditions of employment uniquely suffered because their legal right to maintain their reputation was infringed without cause, while no other employees faced a similar degradation.

These events caused Racco and Thomas to reasonably perceive harm to reputation such that neither man sought reelection as a Union officer. The current Union president credibly testified to difficulties in recruiting members to fill the ranks of its executive board due to members’ perceptions of how Racco and Thomas were treated.

This chilling effect upon recruitment and participation of bargaining unit members as Union officers was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mayor’s public ratification of Chief Finley’s views and his conduct in response to the Union’s legal assertion of its protected legal rights. The Mayor and Finley committed per se violations of R.C. 4117.11 by, in effect, stating the Union and its leaders were racist for requesting information and demanding to bargain. This was done in spite of the fact that R.C. Chapter 4117. confers rights by one’s status as a public employee (or public employer) without regard to race – period….

And the board ordered the city to, among other things,

Refrain from yelling at union officers, making physically threatening gestures toward union officials, making racially oriented insults toward union officers, and accusing union officers of racism during meetings and communications which specifically arise from the statutory obligation to bargain in good faith ….

I’m not sure this is correct as a matter of labor law, or consistent with the Mayor’s First Amendment rights as an elected official to express his views (see Bond v. Floyd (1966)). But in any event I thought it worth noting; for a post about a loosely similar case, see Did Elected Officials Violate First Amendment by Orchestrating Public Criticism of (and Racism Allegations Against) Their Critic?

For more on the story, see the Vindicator (David Skolnick).