NLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
The decision, which drew a dissent from the sole Republican on the board, upends 76 years of precedent.
November 14, 2024 at 04:14 PM
3 minute read
The National Labor Relations Board has banned so-called "captive audience" meetings—upending 76 years of precedent and stripping employers of a powerful platform many have used to discourage workers from supporting union-organizing efforts.
NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo had been championing the idea of a ban since early 2022, soon after Democrats regained control of the five-member commission, "calling it a license to coerce" that runs counter to the spirit of the National Labor Relations Act.
The board adopted the ban via a ruling Wednesday in an unfair labor practices complaint against Amazon over mandatory anti-union meetings it held at its Staten Island, New York, warehouse before workers there voted to unionize in 2022.
In its ruling, the board asserted that because workers face the threat of punishment or termination if they don't attend the meetings, the gatherings infringe on the right of workers to decide for themselves whether to support unionizing.
The board also said the meetings give companies the opportunity to conduct surveillance on employees while the company argues its case against unionizing.
Until Wednesday's ruling, captive audience meetings had been deemed legal under the precedent set with the board's decision in Babcock & Wilcox Co. in 1948.
"Ensuring that workers can make a truly free choice about whether they want union representation is one of the fundamental goals of the National Labor Relations Act,” board Chair Lauren McFerran said in a statement Wednesday.
“Captive audience meetings—which give employers near-unfettered freedom to force their message about unionization on workers under threat of discipline or discharge—undermine this important goal.”
The board currently has four members, with one seat vacant. Marvin Kaplan, the sole Republican, dissented, arguing that banning the gatherings violates the First Amendment.
“Here, the conflict between the majority’s prohibition of captive-audience speeches and the Constitution is manifest and irreconcilable,” Kaplan said.
An Amazon spokesperson told Law.com that it plans to appeal Wednesday's ruling, calling it "wrong on the facts and the law."
Amazon already is brawling with the NLRB on a broader issue—whether the agency's structure, which puts disputes before administrative law judges, violates its due process rights to judicial review in court.
Seattle-based Amazon sued the agency on Sept. 5 in federal court in San Antonio. A parade of other prominent firms have done the same in recent months, seizing on the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy that administrative agencies cannot use their own tribunals to adjudicate private rights.
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to roll back pro-union policies after his inauguration in January, but it doesn't appear he could seek to undo the captive audience ban anytime soon.
While NLRB board members are nominees of the president subject to Senate confirmation, they have staggered terms. As a result, Trump couldn't remake the board in one swoop, and unless a current board member resigns it's set to remain Democrat-controlled until 2026.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNLRB Blisters Skilled Care Home Chain That Terminated Nursing Assistant Who Complained About Wages
6 minute readIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250