In a continuance of the recent precedent-altering decisions, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has determined that employers can no longer hold mandatory meetings to express their views on unionization. On November 13, 2024, the NLRB decided in Amazon.com Services LLC, Case 29—CA—280153 et. seq. that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) when conducting meetings where employer unionization views will be expressed and employee attendance is required under threat of discipline.
This decision overturns 76 years of precedence and comes just one week after the NLRB put categorical limitations on the information employers are allowed to communicate to their employees regarding unionization. In overturning Babcock and Wilcox Co., 77 NLRB 577 (1948), the NLRB described captive-audience meetings as an “extraordinary exercise and demonstration of employer power over employees in a context where the act envisions that employees will be free from such domination.”
Captive-Audience Meetings and Their History
The captive-audience meeting has been a long-used tool for employers to express their views and the complications of unionizing. An employer conducts a captive-audience meeting when the meeting is mandatory, employers express their unionization views, and an employee’s failure to attend will result in discipline or discharge. In the case at hand, tech-giant Amazon became the most recent target of the NLRB’s slew of decisions. In April of 2021, Amazon employees founded the Amazon Labor Union. During the campaign to do so, Amazon’s leadership held a series of these mandatory meetings. Attendance was recorded via badge scan and failure to attend would result in negative consequences for the employees.
Captive-audience meetings have been a staple for employers since the Babcock decision. There, the NLRB determined that the plain language of the Act allows employers to discuss their union views through mandatory meetings, and any restriction of such would be an illegal restriction of an employer’s freedoms. Their recent decision in Amazon says otherwise.
This new rule is not completely original, however. Prior to Babcock, the NLRB had originally held in Clark Bros. Co. 70 NLRB 802 (1946) that captive-audience meetings were illegal as a result of an employer’s superior economic power. In Babcock, the NLRB relied on the amendments to the Act provided in the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 to overturn Clark Bros.
With Babcock preventing the NLRB’s decision to rest solely on economic reasons, the NLRB laid out three explanations of support. First, captive-audience meetings prevent workers from exercising their rights to not join the labor debate. Second, captive-audience meetings allow employers to observe employees' opinions on unionization. Third, captive-audience meetings compelling attendance produce coercive messaging in character and inhibit workers' freedoms.
What Should You Do as an Employer?
The NLRB clarified that captive-audience meetings conducted prior to this decision will not be deemed illegal. Simply put, those who have held captive-audience meetings in the past will not be punished. The new law will be held prospectively.
Additionally, the NLRB has not completely outlawed meetings discussing views of unionization, only those that are mandatory. With the upcoming change in political leadership, the unionization landscape is likely to evolve in the near future.
Reach out to Partner Jennifer Holly, Associate Nathan Maltes, or any member of GRSM's Labor Practice Group with any questions about this legal alert or for assistance navigating these complex issues.