the certification. We conclude, therefore, that the Board’s refusal to interpret the Fundamental Canons of the Laws and Rules of Professional Engineering was not error. III. Grievant next argues that the Board erred in concluding that his exercise of free speech was not a motivating factor in the employer’s insistence that he sign the certification. He claims that being forced to sign the certification under threat of disciplinary action or discharge' constitutes a retaliatory act on the part of the employer. He contends that while the Board properly concluded that the objections he raised throughout the certification were protected speech, it failed to consider as protected speech his refusal to sign the certification. See Riley v. National Fed’n of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 795 (1988) (<HOLDING>). An employee’s allegation that an employer
recognizing that code is speech holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech holding that speech about financial assistance and handling racial discrimination does not qualify as protected speech holding that free speech protection of new jersey constitution requires subject to reasonable restrictions privatelyowned shopping centers to permit speech on political and societal issues on premises unlike first amendment of federal constitution recognizing forum based approach to assessing speech restrictions that government places on its property