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
Employment LawThe 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
© 2024 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 All3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readElection Outcome Could Spur Policy U-Turns Across Employment Landscape
6 minute readEx-Twitter Exec Sues for $20M, Says Musk Fired Her as 'Petty Retribution'
Recent Layoff/Callback Litigation Underscores Perils Employers Face From Every Direction
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Partner Compensation, Billing Rates Are Trending Higher in Dallas Than Houston
- 2Pa. Firms Carve Out Niche in Guiding Lawyers, Funders on Litigation Finance
- 3New York’s Equal Rights Amendment Is a Big Deal
- 4Blue-Ribbon Panel Calls for Pay Bumps for NYS Commissioners, But Says No to Lawmakers, Elected Officials
- 5'Outstanding Cooperation': Feds Seek Leniency in Sentencing for Ex-FTX Executive Gary Wang
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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