Remember when we told you back in May that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was looking into PUSH’s firings of Aminah Johnson (former PUSH Tenant Advocate) and Kat Ceijka (former PUSH Data Logistics Coordinator) last year? Well, it’s not over! The case is still moving through the court system, and there was a remote hearing in front of an administrative law judge at the end of July. Kat, Aminah, and the PUSH Executive Team all gave oral testimony and were cross examined in front of the judge, on the record. Both sides have submitted post-hearing briefs, and they’re online for everyone to read while we all wait for the judge to make a decision.

The NLRB’s lawyer is representing Aminah and Kat because months ago the agency did find a preliminary violation of the National Labor Relations Act against PUSH, and it is now defending its position. Here is a link to the NLRB’s brief, where the NLRB lays out all of its evidence that has been collected in documents, copies of emails, copies of text messages, and testimony from the hearing.

PUSH, meanwhile, has lawyered up and is paying big firm money for representation from Megan Bahas at Barclay Damon LLP (who is paying for this? Did PUSH get a grant? Is it from Community donations? Membership dues?). Here is a link to PUSH’s brief, where they argue that Aminah and Kat had been terrible employees way before the Organizing Team sent that fateful collective email to the PUSH Board asking to see their department’s final budget, which is the subject of this case.

You would think that PUSH, who calls itself a social justice organization that believes in (but clearly does not practice) a “new economy” of worker-led cooperative organizations, would recognize that it’s gone too far, settle with two of it’s 80+ former employees that it has run out, move on, to do better with the people who still work for them. But instead, the senior executives have refused to admit their wrongdoings while paying large amounts of money for big firm representation to intimidate two employees that it’s already hurt so badly. Not a good look, and a terrible thing to do to other human beings in the movement.

As we have detailed, both Cejka and Johnson were fired in our view as perceived ringleaders or ‘trouble makers’ by PUSH’s Senior Management Team. One of their biggest crimes was asking too many important questions about the money primarily in the form of grants that PUSH Buffalo was getting. They asked questions like; “What are the specifics of our grant award letters? What are the deliverables? What did the grantors say we had to do with the money? Can we present our department budgets to PUSH’s Board of Directors ourselves?” We will cover this in a few parts, because there is a lot to unpack.

The NLRB is a federal organization that investigates disputes between employers and employees over “Protected Concerted Activity” and has the power to grant ‘restorative justice’ in the form of financial damages for employees wrongfully terminated for this. What is Concerted Activity? This is basically when a group of employees organize at a job or place of employment for better working conditions. In this case with PUSH Buffalo, these employees were organizing for better working conditions as to see how the money comes in, and what it legally or contractually must be used for. In the non-profit industrial complex that PUSH is a part of, the biggest source of income is through grants (free money) or in kind monetary donations from public or private donors. For years, especially when this new Senior Management Team model for the organization was enacted, employees have been asking for basic financial transparency. Decisions, like hiring, firing, promotions, budget boosts, or budget cuts left many employees at the organization scratching their heads. Much of it didn’t seem to make any sense at all. But, it makes sense if you know things like the deliverables for grant money coming into the organization. For example, a grantor may give your organization $300,000 but for specific uses like a building project or for communications work. The grant is $300,000, and the deliverable is that the money must be used for the building project or communications work. The specifics of what the grants were to exactly be used for and how much they were for was a secret that PUSH Senior Management, a very small group of high paid managers kept closely to the chest. A group of employees including Johnson and Cejka from PUSH Buffalo’s Organizing Department just wanted to “have a seat at the table” as PUSH has famously said when attempting to hold big corporations or elected officials accountable in their financial transactions that affect the community.

In this first court summary documents you will see details that PUSH Buffalo Senior Managers held a fake ‘participatory budgeting’ process for employees of their Organizing Department with no real intentions of letting the peons (the Organizing Department) that do much of the organization’s legwork, have publicly been the faces that built up the organization’s reputation (which helps them get more grant money), and which are people that come from the community actually get anywhere close to true financial transparency at the organization. Ironically, PUSH has been a staunch advocate of Participatory Budgeting in the city of Buffalo budgeting process. Participatory budgeting is a concept used in social justice circles that refers to the idea that more people, not just the people at the very top, get involved in deciding municipal or organizational budgeting processes. Unfortunately, PUSH Senior Management officials didn’t really believe in the concept themselves. They were just blowing smoke as a cover we believe to collect more free cash to do God knows what, and frontin for social justice.

According to court documents with this case:
“In June of 2020, Respondent began using a “participatory budgeting” process within the Organizing Department. As part of that process, employees were assigned to draft a budget for their respective jobs or work plan with the understanding that those plans would eventually be incorporated into an overall Organizing Department Budget. (Tr. 43-44, Tr. 250, G.C. Ex. 4 at 122 of 159). “Participatory budgeting” is a concept borrowed from local government practitioners in which individual residents of the community have input into how tax revenue is spent in the community. (Tr. 43, 229). When first assigned, Respondent told employees the budget process would be “participatory” in nature to give employees “more ownership over the process” making the department budget more democratic. (Tr. 43). Executive Director Ghirmatzion testified that the organization started using this participatory budgeting system and concept because employees had expressed an interest in the budget and wanted to know “more about how much money was being dedicated to their – their work as they as we are setting work planning and work plans[.]” (Tr. 230). Respondent announced later that employee participation in the Organizing Department budgeting would end after August 1, 2020. (Tr. 44).

Department employees also received confusing correspondence from management concerning when the initial budget narrative assignment was due.

On August 6, 2020 at about 3:45 p.m., Cejka sent the following e-mail to Respondent’s Board of Directors at their direct e-mail account, and Ghirmatzion, Bishop, Wells-Clyburn. Johnson, Camacho, Ford, and McCune were copied on the message. (G.C. Ex. 2 at 25 of 159). In the e-mail, Cejka states the following: “We the undersigned request a viewing and a copy of the final edited budget report prior to its presentation in the board meeting when it is met upon. We request there be time reserved at Friday’s Organizing Admin meeting to discuss this topic further.” Id. The e-mail was signed by “The Organizing Team,” and listed the names of Cejka, Johnson, Rosado, Camacho, Ford, and McCune, respectively. Id. In response to the e-mail, Johnson, Ford, and McCune sent their own short reply e-mails stating “I agree” with the underlying e-mail. Id. Management’s hostile response to the e-mail was immediate, and before employees had any chance to “discuss” the budget further with their immediate supervisors at the upcoming “Friday’s Organizing Admin meeting,” as they had requested through the e-mail, Respondent unleashed a tirade of threatening statements, hostile questions, and intimidating messages in response. On August 6, 2020, at about 6:45 p.m., Ghirmatzion sent an e-mail to Johnson, Camacho, McCune, Ford, Cejka, Bishop, Wells-Clyburn, and the “PUSH Board” e-mail account. (G.C. Ex. 2 at 21-23 of 159). In that e-mail, Ghirmatzion stated, in pertinent part: “It is troubling […] that folks included me and the rest of the Board on this matter, which is clearly a staff issue before a final budget draft or going to Dawn and Steve (Steve works in PUSH Finance Department) who have been meeting with their staff or their direct supervisor Harper Bishop with any questions or concerns. We will meet with the staff that sent this e-mail and I will report back to the Board of Directors at the next Board meeting.” Ghirmatzion ended the e-mail by scolding employees and saying that “if any of the staff on this e-mail have any questions or comments, please respond to me, Harper and Dawn.” Id. After sending this e-mail, several managers, including Harper and Ghirmatzion, contacted and expressed animus directly toward Cejka and Johnson. The very same day, on August 6, 2020, Cejka received a phone call from Bishop who wanted to know why Cejka had sent the e-mail, and to let her know that she would be supervised by Ghirmatzion moving forward. (Tr. 56). Bishop noted that Ghirmatzion planned to attend a staff meeting the following day on August 6, 2020, and, in a menacing way, he said that he felt that he had a lot of power in the department that he simply neglected to use on a regular basis, but that the e-mail we had sent was going to have a big, big impact on our work going forward. Id. In response, Cejka said that employees had concerns about fluctuating income and the stability of their department and wanted to be included in the budgeting process because they weren’t clear how it happened. Id. Ghirmatzion placed a similar intimidating call to Johnson, a long-time worker that she felt had personally betrayed her by engaging in protected concerted activity, shortly thereafter. (Tr. 110- 111). Johnson, who was a long-time employee at the company, recalls Ghirmatzion calling her that day and venomously saying “you, you of all people,” and that Ghirmatzion told her she “didn’t trust her anymore.” Id. Finally, escalating the situation again to intimidate the entire group of employees at once, Ghirmatzion expressly threatened employees with layoffs or termination—so-called “staffing changes”—during a department-wide videoconference meeting on August 7. (G.C. Ex. 2 at 21-23 of 159). On August 7, 2020, the Organizing Department had a staff meeting by video with Ghirmatzion, Wells-Clyburn, and Bishop. During the meeting, Ghirmatzion explained the budgetary process at the organization. She also said there were going to be “staffing changes” and other changes and restructuring in the department. (Tr. 57-58). In a videotaped recording of the videoconference, which has been admitted into evidence and a transcript of which is available in the record, Ghirmatzion called the Board of Directors her “supervisors” and stated her direct animus toward employees who e-mailed them when she said the following: “[F]or [the Board of Directors] to get that email yesterday, […] and I’m not going to tell you about the individual conversations with – they – that they called me to say – you know, ask questions. What was that about? It was the most confusing thing for them. And I agreed that it was quite confusing, considering that I talked to some of you.” “And some of you said, we did this in solidarity. The solidarity to what? If any of y’all have an answer, that’s fine. If not, that’s okay, I’ll move on. And more importantly, you know – so do you not have solidarity with Harper? Do you not have solidarity with me? Do you not have solidarity with the other departments who we have to start the same process that we started with the organizing department, with the (indiscernible) and strategy department – you know, so on and so on and so forth. It’s actually really disrespectful to them as your teammates in this organization when they haven’t even begun their process and have to do this with all of them. And so that said, what it did for me is really finally let me know exactly the problem here. And the problem is, some of you don’t want to be here. It’s been clear to me for some time, honestly. You don’t want to be here. It is not a good fit for us to have you here. And so I’m here to let you know, we will double back.”

Absolutely ridiculous! Do you Miss Ghirmatzion have “solidarity” with the community who you say that you serve and with your employees, many of whom come from the community, or do you and your Senior Management Team only have solidarity with yourselves? And, why is an email from PUSH staff to the organization’s Board of Directors your “supervisors” Miss Ghirmatzion asking a basic elementary question “confusing” for the PUSH Buffalo board? They have previously stated at Annual PUSH Buffalo meetings to members and staff that they have an open door policy. They have said publicly that staff or anyone who has questions can contact them at any time. Why is this particular situation “confusing” for them? Maybe it is confusing for you. This is their attitude, how they operate, and one of the biggest reasons why PUSH Buffalo is having trouble recruiting new members from the community, having big trouble recruiting and keeping staff, and why the West Side of Buffalo has largely turned their back on PUSH. PUSH Senior Managers got triggered and spewed all kinds of venomous threats of firings and demotions when employees asked a so-called social justice organization for basic financial transparency to effectively do their jobs. “Where is the money coming from Miss Ghirmatzion? What is it for? Where has it been going?” The PUSH Board of Directors doesn’t know. Senior Managers don’t know. Nobody knows. As you can see or read for yourself, PUSH Buffalo is not the social justice or community minded organization that they portray themselves to be. They are like any other big corporation, it’s about getting dollars, in this case getting grant dollars ‘for the community’. It’s about using their employee’s and the community’s clout for the purpose of getting money, power, and control for those at the top. If you get in the way of this, or step out of line by simply asking basic questions and asking for transparency – you are a mere “at will” employee pheasant and you will be terminated! Do you want to work for these people? Do you want to fund or grant money to these people? Do you want to wear one of their t-shirts? Do you want to be a PUSH Buffalo member? This is just a glimpse inside the non-profit industrial complex. This is just one organization. How many other big social justice nonprofits think and behave the same way?

So what happens next? We are all waiting for the judge to make a decision and publish his “opinion”, which is a written document where he lays out his decisions on the facts of the case, applies the law to those facts, and decides whether or not PUSH actually violated the National Labor Relations Act. Stay tuned!