In Gelini v. Tishgart (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 219, the appellate court revisited the issue whether an employer violates the public policy set forth in section 923, and thereby exposes itself to liability for wrongful discharge by firing an employee, because the employee's attorney wrote a letter "regarding terms and conditions of her employment" and suggesting "possible bases for litigation." The Gelini court observed that in Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 27 Cal.3d 167, "the seminal case approving tort liability for discharge of an employee in violation of public policy," the California Supreme Court "cited Montalvo, supra, 7 Cal.App.3d 69 as among the Court of Appeal opinions 'confirming the availability of a tort cause of action' by employees 'who had been discharged for joining unions or otherwise exercising their statutory right to choose a bargaining representative.'" (Gelini, supra, at p. 225.) The Gelini court further observed that "in another landmark wrongful termination decision," Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 666, footnote 5 (Foley), the Supreme Court again cited Montalvo "as an example of a decision 'barring discharge of at-will employees in violation of state policies governing labor-management relations.'" (Gelini, supra, at p. 225.) The Court held: 'The Courts of Appeal have interpreted section 923 to mean that "the individual employee has the right to designate an attorney or other individual to represent him in negotiating terms and conditions of his employment, and that his discharge for so doing constitutes a violation" of the public policy declared in the statute. Our Supreme Court has referred to this holding with approval'. Defendant did not attack the sufficiency of evidence as to this cause of action." The Gelini court held: "We believe the fairest reading of the statutory terms, taken as whole, is that the Legislature meant to protect individual workers only insofar as they band together to negotiate with their employer. The construction of section 923 by the courts, however, finds some support in the terms of the statute, and has placed employers on notice that the statute protects individual employees." (Gelini, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 228.) The court also stated, "if the issue presented were one of first impression, we would answer in the negative. The aim of section 923 seems to be the protection of employees' rights to bargain collectively or pursue other mutual remedies." (Id. at p. 222.)