Proponents say HB 3789A protects public employees from deceptive anti-union tactics; opponents call bill unnecessary and constitutionally suspect

House Bill 3789A, as amended by the A6 amendment, would prohibit false impersonation of a labor organization representative where the impersonation is done with the intent to “undermine or interfere with the operations of a labor organization or otherwise negatively impact the labor organization.” The bill creates a private right of action that would allow unions and affected employees to seek monetary relief for violations.

Supporters told the committee on May 8 they had seen an uptick in deceptive communications and mailers that mimic union branding and promise refunds or other inducements, and they asked for statutory clarity and an enforceable remedy for affected public employees. Susan Allen of the Oregon School Employees Association (OSEA) said organizations and mailers sometimes “appear in union garb, identifying themselves as members of the union, with the purposes of persuading members to opt out of union representation.” Sarah Drescher, an attorney with Tedesco Law Group representing multiple public-sector unions, argued the criminal code does not consistently reach impersonation of organizations and that relying on criminal enforcement leaves victims dependent on limited prosecutorial resources. “This added requirement of intent limits those claims to where the conscious objective of the individual is to undermine or interfere with the operations of the labor organization,” Drescher said of the A6 changes.

OSEA members and officials gave several concrete examples. OSEA state president Sarah Wofford testified she received more than 80 voluntary reports of deceptive mailers targeting members in the previous year; OSEA and another union witness described mailers that used similar colors, logos and promised $700–$1,200 rebates or included fake checks. Stella Pemrose, a local chapter president, said her district received dozens of such mailers in a single month and that bilingual members were among those confused by the materials.

Opponents argued the bill is unnecessary, illegal or both. Jason Dudash of the Freedom Foundation called the measure “questionable in its constitutionality” and said proponents' claims do not demonstrate a pattern that requires new law; he said the group’s own mailers have been uploaded for committee review. Representative Nelson and others asked for more evidence from both sides; Nelson also raised concerns about the interplay between private-rights-of-action and existing law. Witnesses from the Freedom Foundation and other opponents said unions themselves sometimes withhold opt-out requests or have conducted improper signature practices, urging lawmakers to address those issues instead.

Committee members discussed evidentiary examples on the record. One senator asked proponents for the evidence; committee staff uploaded mailers for members to review. Several proponents and opponents asked the committee to consider the balance between transparency for workers and First Amendment protections for organizations that communicate about union membership.

The committee closed the public hearing on HB 3789A; the transcript indicates proponents and opponents provided extensive testimony and the A6 amendment narrowed the conduct that would be actionable by adding an intent requirement and replacing liquidated damages with statutory damages. No final committee vote on passage was recorded at this hearing; the A6 substitution was discussed and proponents said it aligned the measure with their objectives.