Denver Art Museum rescinds ‘overly broad’ confidentiality rule to settle union-drive charge

The Denver Art Museum rescinded an employee confidentiality rule and agreed not to interfere with union organizing as part of a settlement of a federal labor charge brought during its 2024 union campaign, records obtained by Urgent Matter through the Freedom of Information Act show.

The National Labor Relations Board’s Region 27 closed the case on compliance June 4, records show. The closing letter is dated days before the union announced members had ratified their first contract.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees labor union said it was the first contract reached at a Colorado museum.

A notice the museum agreed to post as part of the settlement told employees it would rescind an “overly broad” rule in its “Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality” policy from its December 2023 handbook. It would also publish and distribute a revised employee handbook with a lawfully worded rule.

The rescinded rule read: “Confidential information is any and all information disclosed or known to you because of employment with the museum that is not generally known to people outside the museum about its business.”

Paid subscribers can read the full documents.

FOIA Documents: Denver Art Museum’s NLRB settlement file

The formal NLRB case file for Denver Art Museum, obtained by Urgent Matter through FOIA request.

Urgent MatterAdam Schrader

Labor law generally protects employees' right to discuss workplace conditions and organizing efforts with one another.

The museum signed the informal settlement over NLRB charges on January 26, and counsel for AFSCME signed February 9. Regional Director Matthew S. Lomax approved it February 11, documents show.

“By entering into this Settlement Agreement, the Charged Party does not admit that it has violated the National Labor Relations Act,” the agreement states.

AFSCME New Mexico and Colorado Council 18 filed the charge on February 29, 2024, accusing the museum of violating federal labor law as employees prepared to vote on whether to unionize. An attachment to the filing listed 13 alleged violations.

Workers voted 120 to 59 in favor of unionizing in March 2024, and the labor board certified AFSCME Council 18 as their bargaining representative on March 15, NLRB records show. The museum said at the time that it “supports employees’ right to unionize,” according to a March 2024 statement.

The charge accused the museum of altering its handbook in December 2023 to chill protected activity. It also accused the museum of directing employees with “lead” in their titles into management training where they were told they could not join the union effort.

Additionally, the filing alleged that management solicited grievances through question-and-answer handouts and an open-door policy, and cut museum operating hours on Tuesdays by one hour.

It alleged the museum told employees at a February 2, 2024, meeting that benefits and working conditions could change through bargaining because “everything is on the table.”

It also alleged that managers questioned an employee about union activity on social media, “conceding surveillance” of the employee’s protected activity and giving the impression that similar activity of other employees was under surveillance.

Another allegation accused the museum of convening “so-called informational meetings” during work hours—including during a paid lunch period—for employees to listen to management talk about their labor rights, which caused workers to feel they could not leave such meetings.

The charge further alleged the museum refused to renew or extend the contracts of temporary employees and of at least one worker eligible to vote in the election whose contract had been renewed in prior years.

AFSCME amended the charge on September 17, 2025, narrowing it to four allegations that the museum interfered with employees' organizing rights. The union dropped separate claims that the museum had retaliated against workers by reducing their hours or declining to renew their contracts, documents show.

The amended charge also alleged that the museum, "by its counsel," coerced employees against engaging in protected activity at a January 9, 2024, management training.

The notice the museum agreed to post carried a series of commitments written in the labor board’s standard form.

“WE WILL NOT tell non-supervisory employees with ‘lead’ in their title that they are ineligible to participate in a unionization effort, or tell them that they are management, and as such, have a right to tell non-supervisory employees not to support the union,” the notice states.

The museum also agreed not to mislead employees about their eligibility to vote in union elections, solicit grievances during an organizing campaign with promises to remedy them, or otherwise interfere with workers' rights. The settlement also prohibited the museum from posting any notice that undermined or contradicted the required NLRB notice.

A museum official signed and dated the notice and posted it March 13 on bulletin boards in four campus buildings — the Hamilton, Martin, Bannock and Kirkland buildings — and emailed it to all current employees the same day, records show.

The notice remained posted through May 12. The museum certified, under penalty of perjury, that it had revised the rules and notified employees, while acting compliance officer Thomas A. Miller noted that the posting period had expired and requested signed confirmation from the museum, which a representative completed May 13.

Lomax then wrote to Sarah Adey, the museum’s attorney at the Employers Council, that the case “has been closed on compliance.”

“Please note that the closing is conditioned upon continued observance of the informal Settlement Agreement,” Lomax wrote.

Had the museum failed to comply, the agreement provided that the regional director would issue a complaint covering the allegations in the notice, and that the labor board's general counsel could then seek a default judgment. The museum also agreed that those allegations would be treated as admitted and waived its right to file a response.

A museum spokesperson disputed the charge’s claims in 2024, telling Southwest Contemporary: “We can assure you that the museum respects the legal right of employees to unionize and would not interfere with that right, or violate the law, in any way.”

The NLRB released seven records totaling 16 pages, redacting some information under personal privacy and law enforcement exemptions.

Urgent Matter initially sought more records than those provided but agreed to narrow its request to the case’s formal records. An agency attorney wrote that the full file was “quite extensive” and the FOIA branch was experiencing staffing shortages and a backlog of requests.

The remainder of the case file was not processed.

Follow along with other union matters at Urgent Matter’s labor tracker.