Labor charge accuses Toledo Museum of Art of firing guards over union activity

An unfair labor practice charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board accuses the Toledo Museum of Art of firing “all security guards and security supervisors” over union activity, records obtained by Urgent Matter under the Freedom of Information Act show.

The charge was filed on May 6 and the case remains open. The board’s public records show it was filed by an individual, not a union.

It includes five claims: two say employees were discriminated against for union activity, and three say the museum interfered with workers’ labor rights. All the claims involve security guards and supervisors.

One claim says the museum fired guards because they "joined or supported a labor organization and in order to discourage union activities and/or membership." A second says the museum disciplined or retaliated against them, with “discharge” listed as the form it took.

Paid subscribers can read the full documents.

Documents: Toledo museum fired all guards over union drive

Eleven pages released by the NLRB on July 27, 2026, in response to Urgent Matter’s FOIA request.

Urgent MatterAdam Schrader

Two others say the guards were fired for engaging in protected workplace activity—one for discussing wages and other working conditions, and another for protesting working conditions.

The fifth accuses the museum of interfering with, restraining and coercing employees “by interrogating employees about their union activities.” The name of the museum representative accused of questioning employees is redacted, as well as the full dates.

The charge follows the museum's decision earlier this year to outsource its Protective Services department to Safeguard Security Services, requiring most guards to reapply for their jobs.

In April, the Toledo Free Press reported that the museum’s Protective Services department, with 61 employees, was its largest and had the highest turnover rate.

That outlet reported museum leadership told staff on January 27 that protective services officers were being outsourced to Safeguard, a Toledo firm the museum had already used for mobile patrols, parking lot security and control room work.

The director of Protective Services and control room staff stayed on the museum payroll. The rest had to reapply and interview with Safeguard to keep working past February 28. The transition finished March 1.

In total, 38 employees were affected—eight full-time and 30 part-time—and all but two initially chose to move to Safeguard, museum director Adam Levine told the Toledo Free Press.

Former supervisor Liz Sullivan told the paper full-time employees lost health care and retirement benefits and saw paid time off cut, an account several other employees confirmed. Safeguard president Josh Hardman, who ran the museum’s Protective Services department from 2014 to 2017, declined to give the paper details about his company’s benefits.

Levine said the decision was not about finances. He explained that high turnover in the department created extra work for human resources. He also said visitors would not notice any change in service.

About two weeks after the January announcement, Levine received notice that the International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America had petitioned the labor board to represent the museum's guards, the Toledo Free Press reported. The petition was dated February 10, and a notice of election was posted before it was withdrawn on February 26.

Levine said the February 10 letter was the first he had heard of any organizing among the guards, that the final decision to contract with Safeguard was made at the end of 2025, and that the union effort was “absolutely not a factor.”

Sullivan also said she and two other supervisors were asked by the chief financial officer and the director of Protective Services to report anything they heard about unionizing. They were told the museum was putting measures in place so supervisors would not have to be part of a union and would stay museum employees.

The National Labor Relations Act bars the board from certifying a bargaining unit that mixes guards with other employees and bars it from certifying any union as the representative of a guard unit if that union also admits non-guards. The Act’s definition of “employee” excludes supervisors, though the board can find that a worker with a supervisor’s title is not a statutory supervisor.

The museum’s other workers organized in 2025. Ohio Council 8 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees petitioned for an election on March 21, 2025. Workers voted 53 to 11 on April 9 out of 73 eligible voters, board records show.

The unit, which became Art Workers United, covers curators, conservators, librarians, glass studio staff, visitor services associates and others, and expressly excludes “guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.” The board certified the union on April 24, 2025. Glass technicians at the Glass Pavilion are separately represented by Teamsters Local 20.

The NLRB mailed copies of the guard charge to the museum on May 11 and told the charging party to submit a timeline, supporting documents and a witness list by May 25. The board warned the charge could be dismissed for failure to cooperate, the released records show.

The board withheld the rest of the case file. In a determination dated July 27, a FOIA officer wrote that the records were compiled for a pending law enforcement proceeding and that releasing them “could reasonably be expected to interfere with the Agency’s ability to enforce the National Labor Relations Act.”

Eleven pages were released as formal records — the charge, the initial letters to both parties, a commerce questionnaire, an affidavit of service and the notice of appearance. Names, addresses and dates tied to the charging party and to individual employees were redacted.

Urgent Matter is reader-supported. Please consider subscribing to support independent arts journalism.