In situations where bargaining unit employees are being interrogated by an Agency representative in preparation for a proceeding before a third party, like arbitration, where the union is either a party to the proceeding or acting as a representative,
The determination of which penalty to impose in a particular situation requires the application of responsible judgment. Disciplinary action taken is based on the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence available to support the reason(s) for action and that the disciplinary action is warranted and reasonable in terms of the circumstances which prompted it.
Public employees have certain constitutional rights that apply in their employment that may not apply to private employees… 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.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RIGHT TO A RETERMINATION HEARING
In another decision announcing a Constitutional right for public employees not possessed by private employees, the Supreme Court in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill et al. (470 U.S. 532 (1985), 470 U.S. 532); March 19, 1985, held that most public employees are entitled to a hearing before they are discharged.
The Privacy Act of 1974 gives federal employees several rights regarding information that is collected, kept as records, and/or released about them during the course of employment with the Federal government.
Employee’s Right to Union Representation
In a 1975 case (NLRB vs. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 88 LRRM 2689), the U.S. Supreme Court announced the rights of unionized employees to have a union representative present during investigatory interviews. These rights have become known as the Weingarten rights. Employees have Weingarten rights only during investigatory interviews.