Union organizing campaigns represent a critical moment when workers exercise their fundamental rights under Ohio law. Yet during these pivotal times, employers often engage in subtle and not so subtle tactics designed to undermine organizing efforts. Understanding these illegal interference tactics and knowing how to respond can mean the difference between a successful campaign and a defeated workforce.

The Ohio Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act provides robust protections for public employees seeking union representation. When employers violate these protections through interference, restraint, or coercion, they commit unfair labor practices that can invalidate elections and subject them to significant legal consequences.

The Legal Standard: Objective Impact Matters More Than Intent

Ohio law prohibits public employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees who exercise their rights to organize and engage in collective bargaining activities. The State Employment Relations Board evaluates these violations using an objective test based on the totality of circumstances.

This objective standard means that an employer's claim of good intentions provides no defense. What matters is whether a reasonable person could conclude that employees were restrained, coerced, or had their rights interfered with by the employer's conduct. Even actions taken with the best of intentions can violate the law if they objectively undermine employees' free choice.

SERB requires that representation elections occur under what they call "hygienic conditions," ensuring employees can make free and untrammeled choices about union representation. Any employer action that disrupts these conditions, regardless of motive, constitutes an unfair labor practice.

The Wage Increase Weapon: A Classic Interference Tactic

One of the most common and effective interference tactics involves manipulating expected wage increases during organizing campaigns. The Clark County Board of Developmental Disabilities case provides a textbook example of this illegal strategy.

When Registered Service Workers filed for union representation, the employer withheld their expected annual wage increases while granting raises to all other non-unionized employees. The employer then sent a letter to these workers explicitly blaming the union petition for the denial of raises and suggesting that choosing union representation might result in less favorable outcomes than what non-union employees received.

This calculated move had its intended effect. Several employees testified they voted against union representation specifically because they wanted their annual raise. The employer achieved exactly what it hoped: using economic pressure to turn workers against the organizing effort.

SERB found multiple violations in this conduct. The withholding of expected raises while blaming the union constituted interference, restraint, and coercion. The action interfered with the formation of the employee organization. And treating these employees differently because they engaged in protected organizing activity amounted to illegal discrimination.

The consequences were significant. SERB ordered a new election, finding that the employer had destroyed the hygienic conditions necessary for a fair vote. The Board also ordered the employer to provide union access to employees to counteract the poisoned atmosphere.

Recognizing the Full Spectrum of Illegal Interference

Employers deploy numerous tactics beyond wage manipulation to interfere with organizing efforts. Each represents a violation of Ohio law that unions must be prepared to identify and challenge.

Threats, whether explicit or implied, constitute clear interference. When supervisors threaten discipline for filing grievances or suggest that organizing will lead to increased health insurance costs, they violate the law. These threats need not be carried out to constitute unfair labor practices; the mere communication of potential negative consequences for union activity violates employees' rights.

Surveillance of union communications represents another serious violation. Employers who obtain and use private email communications between union representatives and potential members interfere with protected activity. This surveillance chills organizing efforts by making employees fear that their union support will be monitored and potentially used against them.

Direct questioning about union intentions also crosses legal boundaries. Supervisors who ask employees what it would take to make the union "go away" engage in coercive interrogation. Such questions put employees in the impossible position of either revealing their union sympathies or lying to their employer, both of which interfere with free choice.

Sudden workplace changes during organizing campaigns often constitute interference. When employers make sweeping modifications to working conditions after a representation petition is filed, particularly changes designed to eliminate differences between union and non-union employees, they interfere with the organizing process. These changes send the message that unionization is unnecessary while simultaneously disrupting the stable environment needed for a fair election.

The Importance of Maintaining Status Quo During Campaigns

Employers must maintain existing terms and conditions of employment during organizing campaigns. This requirement extends beyond formal policies to include established practices and customs that employees have come to expect.

Annual wage increases that have become customary cannot suddenly disappear when workers file for representation. Regular bonuses, established scheduling practices, and traditional benefits all form part of the status quo that must continue during the campaign. Any deviation from these established patterns during an organizing drive raises immediate red flags for interference violations.

This status quo requirement serves a critical purpose. It prevents employers from using economic leverage to influence the election outcome. Workers should choose union representation based on their assessment of collective bargaining's benefits, not because their employer has created artificial pressure through strategic withholding of expected benefits.

Building Strong ULP Charges for Interference

When employers engage in interference, unions must act swiftly to file unfair labor practice charges. Document every instance of potentially coercive conduct immediately. Record dates, times, witnesses, and exact statements made by management. Save all written communications, including emails, letters, and posted notices that might demonstrate interference.

The ULP charge should detail how each employer action objectively interfered with employees' rights. Focus on the impact of the conduct rather than attempting to prove the employer's subjective intent. Explain how the actions disrupted the hygienic conditions necessary for a fair election.

Request comprehensive remedies including cease and desist orders, posted notices acknowledging violations, union access to employees, and where appropriate, setting aside tainted election results. In cases of economic retaliation like withheld raises, demand make-whole relief returning employees to where they would have been absent the illegal conduct.

Creating Protective Strategies During Campaigns

Successful organizing campaigns anticipate and prepare for employer interference. Educate organizing committee members about their rights and common interference tactics before the campaign goes public. Create systems for quickly documenting and reporting potential violations.

Establish clear communication channels that allow workers to report interference without fear of retaliation. Consider designating specific organizers to track and document employer conduct throughout the campaign. The more comprehensive the documentation, the stronger the potential ULP charges.

Prepare workers for common employer tactics. When employees understand that withholding raises or making threats violates the law, they are less likely to be swayed by these illegal actions. Knowledge of their rights empowers workers to resist coercion and report violations.

The Broader Impact of Fighting Interference

Challenging employer interference does more than protect a single organizing campaign. Each successful ULP charge establishes precedent that protects future organizing efforts. Employers who face consequences for interference become more cautious about engaging in similar conduct.

Moreover, vigorous enforcement of anti-interference provisions maintains the integrity of the entire collective bargaining system. When employers can interfere with impunity, the right to organize becomes meaningless. By holding employers accountable for coercive conduct, unions preserve the fundamental principle that workers, not employers, choose whether to pursue collective representation.

Conclusion: Vigilance Protects Organizing Rights

The right to organize free from employer interference stands as a cornerstone of Ohio public sector labor law. Employers who interfere with organizing campaigns through economic pressure, threats, surveillance, or other coercive tactics violate this fundamental right.

Unions must remain vigilant throughout organizing campaigns, documenting interference and filing charges promptly when violations occur. The law provides powerful remedies for interference, but only when unions actively enforce their rights.

Every successful challenge to employer interference strengthens the organizing rights of all Ohio public workers. By understanding these rights and defending them vigorously, unions ensure that workers can make truly free choices about collective representation, unencumbered by employer coercion or manipulation.