On November 13, 2024, in its decision Amazon.com Services LLC, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) banned mandatory “captive audience meetings,” a tool historically used by employers during union campaigns to express the company’s views on unionization to its employees. Under this ruling, such meetings are now an unlawful violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”). This decision overturns 76-years of Board precedent, which had previously held that employers could require their employees to attend such meetings during workhours, so long as no direct threats or promises were made.
The Board’s Decision in Amazon.com Services, LLC
Section 8(c) of the NLRA permits employers to express their views, arguments, and opinions without committing an unfair labor practice so long as such expression does not contain any threats or promise any benefits. Under the protection of this provision, employers experiencing union campaigns have traditionally required their employees to attend mandatory meetings during which the company and its managers express their views on unionization. Historically, employees could be disciplined if they did not attend these mandatory meetings during working hours.
In 2021, a group of employees began to organize at two Amazon (“the Company”) facilities in New York. During the campaign, the Company held a series of mandatory meetings during work hours to urge employees to reject union representation. Managers personally notified employees that they were scheduled to attend these meetings, escorted them to the meetings, and scanned their ID badges to digitally record attendance. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge for the Board held that the Company’s requirement that an employee attend the meetings or face discipline was lawful.
On appeal, the Board held that such mandatory meetings are inherently coercive, and are outside of an employer’s protections under Section 8(c). The Board reasoned that while employers have a right to generally share their views on unionization, the Act does not permit employers to compel their employees to listen to such views. As explained by the Board, at captive audience meetings, “[a]n employer can observe employees at these meetings, seeing, among other things, with whom they associate and how they react to what they hear. An employer can silence, or even banish, employees who would express their own views or even just ask questions. It should be clear, then, that a captive-audience meeting is 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. We thus prohibit captive-audience meetings.”
Importantly, the Board declined to apply its decision retroactively. Therefore, employers who have previously held captive-audience meetings will not be liable for an unfair labor practice for holding a meeting that was lawful at the time it was held.
A Safe Harbor For Employers
- The decision does not prohibit employers from hosting voluntary meetings during which the Company expresses its view on unionization. Specifically, the Board explained that an employer does not commit an unfair labor pratice if it “reasonably in advance of the meeting, [] informs employees that:
- The employer intends to express its views on unionization at a meeting at which attendance is voluntary;
- Employees will not be subject to discipline, discharge, or other adverse consequences for failing to attend the meeting or for leaving the meeting; and
- The employer will not keep records of which employees attend, fail to attend, or leave the meeting.”
Accordingly, employers who elect to hold voluntary meetings should be sure to communicate the above to their employees prior to the meeting and to follow through on such promises.
Looking Ahead
It is currently unclear whether the Board’s current ban on captive audience meetings will be short-lived. The Board’s sole Republican appointee dissented to the decision. Given the incoming Republican administration in January 2025, and thus likely Republican appointees to the Board in the next few years, the Board could reverse this decision in the near future. Until that happens, employers should avoid requiring their employees to attend meetings in which the Company’s views of unionization will be discussed.
If you have questions about this ruling, or if you’d like to discuss how this decision could impact you, please contact a member of our Labor & Employment Law Team.
