E-mail costs secretary her job

A judge called it ironic.

This summer, Michele McJunkin, a secretary for the Omaha police union, sent a City Council member an anonymous e-mail critical of the “generous” compensation packages given to both the police and fire unions. She did so from her personal e-mail account on her home computer, using the name “Christine.”

The council member, Jean Stothert, forwarded the e-mail on to Omaha Police Union President Aaron Hanson, who recognized the e-mail address and eventually verified that the e-mail had come from McJunkin, a 16-year employee.

Hanson, with the vote of his board, then gave McJunkin a choice: Resign or be fired.

Flash back four years, to March 2005: Then-Omaha Police Chief Thomas Warren fires Sgt. Kevin Housh after Housh writes in a union newsletter that city leaders were “acting like petty criminals trying to conceal some kind of crime.”

The union holds rallies for Housh and files a lawsuit on his behalf, saying his statements were “protected union speech” and that the firing of Housh “chilled” the free speech of other union members.

In the end, the union succeeds in its fight to get Housh his job back.

“It seems ironic that (union) members were able to openly challenge the City of Omaha whenever the members believed their interests were at stake,” wrote a labor judge who reviewed McJunkin's case. “But (the union) would deny its own employee the right to anonymously address an issue of public interest.”

No one, not even McJunkin, has questioned the legality of the union forcing out McJunkin. In an at-will state like Nebraska, employers can fire employees without giving a reason, as long as the termination doesn't violate workplace discrimination laws.

But the judge who reviewed McJunkin's case — Administrative Law Judge John Bellavia Jr. — questioned why the police union would go so far as to contest giving the 59-year-old McJunkin 12 weeks of unemployment benefits worth $3,600.

In a decision last month, Bellavia restored McJunkin's right to those unemployment benefits. Now the police union is appealing that ruling to Douglas County District Court.

Union President Hanson declined to comment on the case, calling it a personnel matter. Union attorney John Corrigan said any organization would have fired McJunkin for an e-mail that “undermines” the organization's objectives.

“We have someone with access to confidential union information that is engaging in anonymous conversations with adversaries (City Council members) regarding union matters,” Corrigan said. “It is simply inconsistent with her duty of loyalty to her employer. It became a matter of great concern, of grave concern, to the union.”

In turn, both sides are squaring off on concerns of free speech — and on what kinds of comments constitute misconduct by an employee.

When it comes to free-speech rights in the workplace, labor attorneys say, the law has established a sort of hierarchy for employees.

Public union workers such as police and firefighters generally have the most freedom to air views on public policy matters. Union members for private companies also have some leeway.

Private employees, meanwhile, have far fewer free-speech rights at work — protected primarily by federal workplace discrimination laws.

Though she worked for the police union, McJunkin was a private employee.

Paid about $38,500 a year from union members' dues, she did all sorts of administrative duties and had access to the union's business dealings, including documents detailing negotiations with the city.

But it was her concern as a private citizen that caused her to throw herself into what she now calls a “whirlwind” — a whirlwind that has swept up the union and the City Council member who forwarded her e-mail.

Shortly after midnight on Sunday, July 19, McJunkin sat down at her home computer and let loose. In what was supposed to be an anonymous e-mail, she railed on Mayor Jim Suttle's salary increases for certain department heads, writing that Suttle was “following the Obama doctrine right down the line.”

“As for police and fire, I appreciate their positions but they are not bailing out my 401k,” she wrote. “I am tired of property taxes being the end all to everything. … maybe some of them need to be laid off and then realize how nice their little jobs are.

“If anyone actually read their contracts they would be sick to their stomach both fire and police have generous packages … and yet they are never satisfied.”

As she hit “send,” McJunkin said, she had a brief sinking feeling. But then, she knew the e-mail was anonymous.

The top of the e-mail said it was “from nobody.” McJunkin signed the bottom of the e-mail “Christine.”

On the receiving end, Stothert said she read the e-mail the next day and didn't give it much thought. She forwarded it on to Hanson.

It didn't take Hanson long to figure out who wrote it. Although it didn't contain McJunkin's name, Hanson recognized the personal e-mail address as his secretary's.

After verifying that, he confronted McJunkin. She admitted she had written the e-mail.

Within days, she was given a choice by Hanson and the union board: Resign or be fired. She resigned — and the union paid her for her unused vacation and sick pay.

Then came the fireworks.

A deputy with the Nebraska Department of Labor reviewed the dismissal and found that McJunkin had committed misconduct — thus disqualifying her for 12 of her 26 weeks of unemployment benefits.

Floored, McJunkin hired Omaha attorney William Lynch and appealed.

Union attorney Corrigan conceded that McJunkin had no prior disciplinary problems. However, he said, she acted with deceit by anonymously airing views that were contrary to the union's.

Bellavia, the administrative law judge, said McJunkin “at no time divulge(d) confidential information which could place the employer at a disadvantage in its negotiations.”

McJunkin “exercised her right as a citizen of Omaha to express her views to a City Councilwoman,” he wrote. “(She) did so in a manner which did not bring disrepute or embarrassment to the (union).”

Bellavia said McJunkin's e-mail was distributed to just a handful of people, including Stothert and Stothert's husband, a volunteer medical director for the Omaha fire department. McJunkin said she also sent it to three other council members.

Bellavia compared that e-mail to Housh's words in the Shield, a union newspaper distributed across the city. Writing about police response times, Housh characterized city officials as a “bunch of grown men and women, supposedly leaders, acting like petty criminals.”

Earlier this year, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling that Housh's words did not constitute “flagrant misconduct.”

McJunkin's “relatively innocuous e-mail to a City Councilwoman does not approach the intensity or distribution of Sergeant Housh's article,” Bellavia wrote. “She did not (exhibit) a deliberate disregard of the employer's interests or standards of behavior.”

Corrigan said the judge's comparison of the two cases “is just off base.” Housh, a public employee, was well within his rights to air his views on a matter of public policy. McJunkin, a private employee, had no right to air views counter to those of her employer.

The union board had concerns about whether it could trust McJunkin — or what information she might divulge, Corrigan said.

“It's very disturbing for us to see the judge apply this standard in the wrong context,” Corrigan said. “It's a tough pill for us to swallow.”

The denial of unemployment benefits has been a tough pill for McJunkin to swallow.

A month after being forced out of a job for the first time in her life, McJunkin, 59, fired off another missive to Stothert. In a letter dripping with sarcasm, McJunkin essentially thanked the councilwoman for “my termination.”

Stothert said she had forwarded the anonymous e-mail only because Hanson had requested that she relay questions or concerns about police to him. Stothert said she does so only on cases where constituents air a general question or concern, not in cases where people file specific complaints against an individual.

She said she was stunned to learn later that the e-mail had come from Hanson's secretary.

“I had no idea who wrote the e-mail when I forwarded it,” she said. “I just assumed it was a concerned citizen. And I certainly had no idea anything would come of it.”

Nor did McJunkin. She said she hated to give up the camaraderie of working with union leaders and members for 16 years. But, she said, her forced resignation was a blessing in disguise.

“It hurt to lose my job and my livelihood,” she said, “but physically, I feel 100 percent better.”

Corrigan said Hanson and the board harbor no animosity toward McJunkin but have a duty to guard the union's finances.

A statewide fund made up of contributions from hundreds of employers like the police union would cover McJunkin's $3,600 unemployment claim. However, Corrigan said, a claim could increase the union's future payments into that fund.

McJunkin called the union's appeal petty.

“All the personal time I gave to the union … because I was considered part of the ‘family' was worth it,” she wrote in a letter after her departure. “Nothing anyone thinks or says, including the bogus reason for the whirlwind to fire me, can take that away.”

Contact the writer:

444-1275, todd.cooper@owh.com

« Metro/Region

Share