Rockstar Games is currently under scrutiny following allegations of union-busting after the termination of 34 employees from their Rockstar North and Rockstar Toronto offices. The controversy began on November 1, when reports emerged accusing the company of targeting union members. Rockstar responded by denying these accusations, asserting that the dismissals were due to “gross misconduct,” specifically citing the sharing of confidential information in what they claimed to be a public forum.
Union vs. Rockstar: The Allegations
The IWGB has been vocal in its allegations, asserting that the firings were a strategic move to undermine union activities. An anonymous Rockstar employee supported these claims, stating that the company was framing a private Discord server, meant exclusively for Rockstar employees and IWGB members, as a public forum. This server, they claimed, was where discussions about company policy changes took place, which Rockstar labeled as confidential information leaks.
Legal Battles and Employee Support
The IWGB has pursued legal action against Rockstar, while over 200 Rockstar employees have signed a letter backing their terminated colleagues. Demonstrations demanding the reinstatement of the fired workers have taken place outside Rockstar’s offices in Edinburgh, London, and Paris. Meanwhile, People Make Games has released a report that aligns with the anonymous employee’s claims, shedding light on the specific messages cited by Rockstar as the reason for the terminations.
The Discord Dilemma
A Rockstar employee not affiliated with the union provided People Make Games with insights into the discussions held in the Discord server. These conversations were centered around changes to the company’s internal Slack policies, which included the removal of casual discussion channels. The Discord server, established in 2022 for union-related discussions, became a platform for employees to talk about these changes. It is this context that Rockstar argues constitutes the sharing of information in a public forum. However, the IWGB contends that such discussions are legally protected under UK law, as they pertain to working conditions.
Now, the resolution of this dispute may hinge on legal interpretations of what constitutes a ‘public forum,’ with potential implications for the involved employees and the company’s practices.