Did you not read the part where she did, where she followed the process by the book and it was approved? Or did you just have your mind made up to decide to side with Google instead?
Does nobody ask what the code is for and why you're doing it? I mean, I don't expect people to require detailed specs before approving, but a quick "what's this code for, and why are you doing it?" before addressing the details.
Surely that's the bare minimum, isn't it?
Can you explain how this makes the employee wrong if they follow the law and their company fires them for doing so?
The corporation as an entity has the legal obligation to inform people of their right to organize. The corporation has designated specific people with the appropriate expertise and authority as those permitted to do so. Said group does not include this individual. End of story.
> "Which she had the authority to do because it's literally what she was hired to do?"
This individual is a legal or HR specialist with expertise in US labor law and knowledge of approved mechanisms for complying with said laws? No? How odd it is, then, that people are claiming that is what she was "hired to do" despite having no qualifications or permission to to do so.
I'm not siding with Google, but I'm not siding with her either. The facts and evidence presented to me don't give me an impression that Google was in the wrong by firing her. My opinion will change if I see that the guiding principles or Employee handbook that led Google to this decision are not in agreement.