In the September 14 meeting of the Greenbelt City Council, ongoing issues relating to the previously authorized unionization of city workers, mostly with Public Works, came into focus. The city had received notice of legal action by the union alleging illegal practices by Public Works managers aimed at dissuading workers from joining the union.
A Litany of Concerns
Union organizer Trent Leon-Lierman came to the podium during the Petitions and Requests section of the meeting, followed by several more residents who continued the discussion in turn. Other matters during this regular council meeting will be reported in a subsequent article.
Recently, council changed the city charter to permit unionization beyond that of the police (see the July 23 issue). In reference to this, Leon-Lierman quoted the experiences of Michael Canavan, one of the Public Works employees who has shared his experiences in the past and been a vocal proponent of a union to represent workers in the city (see the September 11, 2025 issue).
Mutual Trust
Leon-Lierman pointed out that the city has now engaged, at considerable taxpayer expense, a law firm to represent it in its negotiations with the union. He characterized the law firm as anti-union and wondered why the city would pay for this service when the union representative, Leon-Lierman himself, was willing to sit down and negotiate in good faith with the city. Referring to the city manager familiarly by his first name, Leon-Lierman asked, rhetorically, why the city manager would not sit down and talk it through.
Employee Speaks
Following Leon-Lierman, city employee Dajuan Stanback urged council to take action to allow the union relationship. Stanback, clearly nervous, characterized himself as “shaking in his boots” to be there.
The Complaint
Resident Susan Smithers pointed out that in the early Greenbelt years, the city worked together with unions to forge a good life. She was impassioned, saying, “Shame on you” repeatedly to the managers of Public Works, whom she accused of lying as well as “intimidating.”
She began reading out the complaint from the union, which alleges that Public Works employees had faced “repeated incidents of intimidation, coercion and interference from the City of Greenbelt and its managerial employees.” The complaint goes on to claim that these incidents have increased in frequency and severity since the charter change was enacted.
The document further accuses city management of “interfering with the employees’ right of self-organization protected under the Greenbelt code.” Smithers named a particular Public Works supervisor and cited a litany of complaints that he was threatening injurious consequences to employees if they were to join the union. She ended her speech saying, “Shame on you” directly to City Manager Josué Salmerón.
Next Up
Resident Lore Rosenthal rose to continue Smithers’ recital of the union complaint when Smither’s initial five-minute speaking time expired. Rosenthal continued reading from the union complaint, citing all 14 alleged incidents, all of which outlined illegal management actions, threats or misrepresentations that contravene legislation on employee rights. Each citation included related case law and/or a labor code citation associated with the alleged illegal activity.
The alleged incidents included actions designed to prevent worker interaction with union representation, accusations that the union tells lies and threats that working conditions will change for the worse if they join the union. The document also asserts that a recent employee termination was used to intimidate others from joining the union.
The complaint also requests the allocation to the city of costs and attorney fees associated with the complaint, as adjudicated by an impartial labor commissioner. The complaint goes on to request that an included document be posted publicly and also sent by email to all public works employees.
A Request
Another speaker said council should affirm that workers have the legal right to unionize and management is required to be neutral. He requested that management affirm that and inform city employees accordingly.
Salmerón’s Response
During his administrative report, Salmerón responded to the statements made earlier. He said that the city has delivered training and constant reminders to Public Works managers to remain neutral as workers make their decisions. As a result of the city being served with the legal complaint read by the petitioners, significant conversations have taken place with supervisory personnel. Salmerón expressed his disappointment that there are still major concerns.
Labor Commissioner
Salmerón said he would welcome the appointment of an impartial labor commissioner to investigate this — not in-house or by city attorneys — and said he felt this would be agreeable to the city and to the union attorneys who brought the unfair labor practices complaint.
Salmerón promised to follow through on any recommendation a commissioner may make, including disciplinary action. He said he is intent on remaining neutral, to preserve his own credibility when he comes to the table to negotiate with the union, he said. He explained that’s why he will not himself take an active role in the investigation.
In response to a question from resident Michael Hartman, Salmerón confirmed that the disciplinary action he referred to taking would be against any management employee who had violated the rights of workers.
A Good Place to Work
Hartman went on to aver that Salmerón and the workers held the same ambition — a good place to work. Salmerón replied that he assuredly did hold that as an ambition and pointed out that the city, in the last three budgets, had cut unfilled positions and trimmed back so that they could continue to give Public Works employees raises and good working conditions — just as they do for classified workers.
Request for Status
In response to a question from Councilmember Jenni Pompi, Salmerón replied that they had requested a list of qualified labor commissioners. She then requested to get a timeline on the process. She also asked if notices were, in fact, posted in the workplace about the employees’ right to organize without fear of repercussion. In both cases, Salmerón said he would provide information on what had been done.
Fear of Repercussion
Pompi referred sympathetically to Stanback, the employee who was nervous to speak to council — noting that while speaking in public might have been part of his trepidation, she felt he was also likely very concerned about potential repercussions in the workplace.
Avoiding Lawyers
Echoing Leon-Lierman’s earlier point, Councilmember Frankie Fritz felt that with a little good will on both sides, it was perhaps not necessary to go the legal route and pay for lawyers and commissioners. Noting that council had already stated publicly in the council meeting that it was committed to proceeding correctly, he thought both parties could come to agreement.
Fritz deferred to Salmerón’s right to decide, but said, having himself worked in the labor relations field, he felt the formality was probably not necessary. A speaker from the floor supported Fritz’s point, saying that it went against the cooperative spirit of Greenbelt to hire “notoriously union-busting lawyers” to represent their interests. (As noted in last week’s reporting, Salmerón has stated that the same firm has been the city’s labor attorney for at least 20 years and has overseen their collective bargaining process for the police department (see the September 17 issue).)
What’s Next
While no conclusions were reached or specific actions taken, it was clear that council, reiterating its support for fair labor practices, was determined to make sure that employees were treated fairly and respectfully in the matter of unionization.