Officials from the University of California said they will appeal a motion filed by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Thursday to forbid the university from stopping union members from leafletting in certain areas at UC medical centers.
The Alameda County Court granted AFSCME a temporary restraining order after UC San Francisco security allegedly threatened to arrest union members who were passing out union materials to passersby at the medical center on Feb. 5.
An AFSCME spokeswoman, who declined to be identified because the case is still pending, said this was a surprise to union members, who had been peacefully leafletting at both the UCLA and UCSF medical centers since Jan. 15.
She declined to discuss the subject of the leaflets because she said the case is not about the actual content, but it is an issue of free speech.
The university cited patient and family access and safety as reasons for barring AFSCME from certain areas of the medical centers, according to a press release.
Nicole Savickas, a coordinator for human resources and labor relations at the University of California Office of the President, said having union members standing at the entrances and exits could be a “hassle” for patients and their families.
Savickas said that in some instances, union members had stood in corridors.
“We’re trying to ensure the safety of the patients, as well as the level of patient care. Our concern is simply to make patients and their families comfortable. When patients and their families are at the medical center, it’s not always a comfortable place,” she said.
Savickas added that the UC is not trying to ask AFSCME to leave the medical premises, but merely to stay in certain allocated sections.
“We’re willing to work with the unions. We’re mainly interested in keeping them out of high-traffic areas,” Savickas said.
But Lakesha Harrison, president of AFSCME local 3299, said moving the unions to low-traffic areas would make it extremely difficult to reach members of the public.
“This case is about our fundamental right to speech and ability to distribute literature to the public, period. (The) UC is preventing us from doing that,” she said in an e-mail interview.
Union members had been trained not to block anyone’s path and to maintain distance from the entrances and exits at all times, the AFSCME spokeswoman said.
In addition, she also stated union members did not use bullhorns, picket, or hold rallies, and usually stayed about 30 feet away from the main entrances to the UCLA Medical Center.
“We have only received support and encouragement from patients, their families and our coworkers,” Harrison said in the e-mail.
But others such as Amina Diaz, lawyer for the Law Offices of Judith Wood & Jesse Moorman and the Human Rights Project, said while the issue may seem to be about access, it’s really a First Amendment issue.
Diaz said the dispute calls rights of free speech into question.
“It appears that the UC is attempting to impose a time, place and manner restriction on the union’s exercise of the First Amendment right to free speech. Even if the UC claims that it”˜s an access issue, it’ll still fall under a First Amendment right,” she said.
Diaz added that if the court determined the UC was attempting to restrict the union based on subject matter or viewpoint, strict scrutiny would be applied.
“If strict scrutiny is applied, then the UC must show that the restriction of speech is necessary to achieve a compelling interest,” Diaz said.
But Diaz also said if the UC could prove the restriction was content-neutral, then intermediate scrutiny would be applied, meaning the UC must show the restriction of speech was substantially related to achieve an important interest.
But the officials from University of California object to “misleading” material in the union pamphlets, according to the UC press release.
“It will probably fall under strict scrutiny, and that is the UC’s burden,” Diaz said.