Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—Union president, fired for sharing workplace climate survey, ordered reinstated with back pay and benefits, (Nov 12, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

Believing the survey addressing morale, leadership, communication, retention, and pay directly implicated terms and conditions of employment, she forwarded it to the union to prepare an appropriate response.

A long-serving Montana Highway Patrol trooper and union president successfully contested her termination for allegedly violating a direct order prohibiting dissemination of an internal climate survey. The arbitrator sustained the union grievance, finding the employer lacked just cause for discharge because the directive restricting dissemination was unreasonable and infringed upon legitimate union activity. Additionally, the arbitrator found no false statements were made during the employer’s investigation. The award directed the trooper’s reinstatement with full back pay and benefits (State of Montana, Montana Highway Patrol and Montana Federation of Public Employees (Jacobs, Arb. Apr. 4, 2025)).

Shared survey, was fired. The dispute arose after the agency’s Strategic Improvement Committee—of which the grievant was a member—completed a workplace climate survey addressing morale, leadership, communication, retention, and pay. The grievant, who also served as the elected president of the troopers’ union, received an email from a commanding officer distributing the final report with instructions that it was not to be shared pending a planned release. Believing the survey directly implicated terms and conditions of employment, the grievant emailed the report to her personal account and forwarded it to the union to prepare an appropriate response. The union subsequently shared the findings publicly, generating controversy over internal agency culture.

Union grieved her termination. The employer charged the grievant with insubordination, dishonesty, and lack of remorse, asserting that she disobeyed a clear directive and concealed her conduct during the ensuing investigation. The union countered that the directive was not a lawful order because the document concerned employment matters that fell squarely within the union’s statutory duties. It argued that the grievant’s actions were taken in good faith to enable the union to represent its members on issues of workplace morale and systemic communication failures, not to embarrass management. The union also emphasized the absence of any formal confidentiality designation on the report and noted that no harm was shown to have resulted from its release.

Overly broad, not necessary. First, the arbitrator addressed the threshold question of whether the employer’s order was reasonable and enforceable. He concluded that while management may restrict dissemination of genuinely confidential material, the order here was overly broad and unsupported by operational necessity. The survey addressed matters that were neither classified nor security-sensitive but related to employee perceptions and workplace climate—subjects inherently tied to union representational functions. The arbitrator found that the grievant’s union presidency created a legitimate basis to share the document internally for representational purposes.

No intent to deceive. Next, on the charge of dishonesty, the arbitrator determined that the grievant’s initial omission during questioning stemmed from confusion and not intent to deceive. He observed that the employer’s investigation appeared predisposed toward severe discipline and failed to consider the grievant’s good faith in balancing her union role with her committee duties.

Applying the “just cause” standard, the arbitrator held that termination was disproportionate and inconsistent with progressive discipline principles. The grievant’s long service record, absence of prior discipline, and the ambiguous nature of the order weighed heavily in mitigation.

Reinstatement, seniority, and back pay. Concluding that the directive was unreasonable and that the grievant acted within her rights as union president, the arbitrator ordered her reinstated with back pay and full seniority.

Attorneys: Chad Vanisko for the Montana Highway Patrol. Nate McConnell for the Montana Federation of Public Employees.

Companies: Montana Highway Patrol; Montana Federation of Public Employees

Cases: Arbitration Labor PublicEmployees Discharge IndividualRights RemediesDamages