NLRB General Counsel Expounds Upon Desire To Ban Employers' Right to Hold Mandatory Meetings

Last week, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) General Counsel’s office filed a brief in a case called Cemex urging the NLRB to change decades of case-law precedence by, among other things:

1. Effectively eliminate secret-ballot elections and impose de-facto card check, as well as…

2. Banning employers from conducting mandatory meetings (also called “captive-audience” meetings)

On Thursday, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo followed up to a series of tweets she posted earlier in the week (elaborating on her desire to replace secret-ballot elections with de-facto card check) with another series of tweets that expounded on her desire to ban employers’ mandatory meetings.

It should be noted that, while Abruzzo lays out a proposed format for employers to hold voluntary meetings, when referring to so-called “captive audience” meetings, the General Counsel is not just referring to employers’ group meetings, she is also referring to supervisors discussing unionization with their employees, on a one-on-one basis, while “on the job” (working).

NLRB General Counsel @NLRBGC

🧵Last week, GC Abruzzo issued a memo announcing that she would urge the Board to rule that captive-audience meetings in which employees are forced to listen to employer speech concerning the exercise of their labor rights under Section 7 of the NLRA are unlawful.

NLRB General Counsel @NLRBGC

Today, General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo announcing that she will ask the Board to rule that mandatory meetings, including captive audience meetings, are a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. https://t.co/zW0vYOEinQ https://t.co/Mb3MIeQ9we

NLRB General Counsel @NLRBGC

This week, in a case called Cemex, the General Counsel filed a brief formally asking the Board to do so. In the brief, the GC explains why the Board should make this important change in labor law. apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.….

NLRB General Counsel @NLRBGC

The National Labor Relations Act gives employees the freedom to receive aid, advice, & information from others about exercising their Section 7 rights, and therefore must also give employees the right to refrain from doing so. This right is also consistent with the 1st Amendment.

NLRB General Counsel @NLRBGC

But under current law, employers can implicitly, if not explicitly, threaten economically dependent employees to force them to attend meetings about the exercise of Section 7 rights and then make good on those threats by disciplining employees who exercise the right to refrain.

NLRB General Counsel @NLRBGC

This coercion exists not only in group meetings but also when an employer corners an employee while the employee is performing their job duties to talk about their right to unionize or engage in collective action or refrain from doing so.

NLRB General Counsel @NLRBGC

Thus, the General Counsel is urging the Board to hold that captive-audience meetings are unlawful. Employers would still be able to share their views but would have to do so with safeguards to neutralize the implicit threat of reprisal.

NLRB General Counsel @NLRBGC

By adopting this approach, the Board would protect employers’ free speech right to express views, argument, or opinion concerning Section 7 activity. But employees would also be able to freely assert their right to refrain from listening to that speech.

Related links:

• NLRB General Counsel Elaborates On Her Rationale For Imposing De-Facto Card Check

• NLRB General Counsel Files Brief To Ban "Captive Audience" Meetings, Install Back-Door Card Check

---

If you are in a multi-person HR department with four or more people, or a law firm, be sure to check out our group subscription rates.

---