Two pediatricians at Cleveland’s University Hospitals used an internal physician directory to contact colleagues about forming a union. In response, they say that UH disciplined them for trying to unionize. They’ve filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB.
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protects employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity—including organizing a union and discussing it with co-workers. That protection applies whether you’re a warehouse worker or a pediatric subspecialist.
An employer can restrict employee use of internal systems—like email or directories—for nonwork purposes, including union organizing. But:
The policy must be applied consistently, and
It cannot be enforced selectively against union activity.
An employer certainly can’t enforce restrictions only when union talk makes it uncomfortable. So even if UH has a policy limiting directory use (which is far from clear), targeting only the doctors organizing a union is likely unlawful anyway.
Aside from the legalities, from a union-avoidance perspective this move is as shortsighted as it is risky. Retaliation, real or perceived, doesn’t silence organizing. It fuels it. It validates the exact concern these employees are raising—that leadership is unresponsive, punitive, and unwilling to listen.
What should UH have done instead? Focus on what it can control: create space for employees to raise concerns broadly—about staffing, workloads, management responsiveness—and actually act on that feedback. When employees feel heard and respected, they’re much less likely to seek outside representation.
By trying to stamp out this spark, however, UH may have just dumped gasoline on it. Because nothing grows union support faster than a heavy-handed reminder of why employees are organizing in the first place.
