When Google lost his orientation antitrust court in August, Kent Walker, his highest lawyer, reminded employees for the third time that they were not allowed to discuss this second or anyone outside society.
On Friday afternoon, Google canceled the order with the Alphabetic Works Union trade unions, a group representing some of its employees and suppliers, according to E -mail, which Google sent to workers and noticed the New York Times. Alphabet is a parent company of Google.
The Company told employees that it would not “notify or maintain the rules or principles of overvaluations that reduce your right to comment, internally or externally” about how an antimonopoly lawsuit focused on Google’s search engine could affect their employment.
A change in Google’s melody was part of a settlement that is supervised by the National Work Relations Council. In August, the Union filed an unfair complaint about Mr. Walker’s remark.
This agreement is another strike for Google’s company policies aimed at maintaining secrecy, which have been reviewed in the middle of a search case filed by the Ministry of Justice. It also undermines Google’s strategy to maintain its business buzz during court proceedings – for employees to ignore the antimonopoly battle and to focus on their work.
Mr. Walker, President of Google Global Affairs Google, first told employees not to discuss the case when he was submitted in October 2020, according to the E -mail, who looked at The Times.
“It is important that it does not disturb this process, including non -medical legal issues internally or externally,” he wrote instead and ordered employees to focus on building great products and services to help people.
He repeated the call in September 2023, when the case went to court, and again in August, when Google lost this court. The settlement of NLRB only concerned the final remark.
Two months later, Lee-Anne Mulholland, Vice President for Google’s regulators, tried to clarify that Mr. Walker’s instructions were talking to the public for the public.
“That was the basis of Kent’s earlier request that Google was refrained,” the case said.
Google spokesman Courtenay Mencini said that the company disagreed with the interpretation of the NLRB on “reasonable request, to comment on the ongoing legal case without consent.”
“To avoid lengthy court dispute, we agreed to remind employees that they had the right to talk about their job because they were always free and do it regularly,” she added.
The Ministry of Justice demanded a Google breakup, including Chrome, its popular web browser, including remedies to renew the competition in search. Amit P. Mehta, a federal judge, decides what remedial measures to store by August.
It was difficult to tune all the legal machinations out, Stephen McMurtry, Google Search software engineer and a member of the Union, said in an interview.
“There is generally fear of instability that disintegrations could provide our jobs, working conditions, compensation, various things,” McMurtry said.
Like other large technology companies, Google has created a secrecy formula in its culture and business communication. After Microsoft was affected by the legal defense by damaging the e -maly during its antitrust court a quarter of a century ago.
Google also routinely discussed sensitive business matters in immediate messages that were automatically removed, although the company said it has handed over many of the justice department.
