An employer is generally permitted to require employees to attend meetings during which the employer communicates its positions on political or religious issues, with some exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Act, which governs collective bargaining between labor organizations and private employers, has been interpreted by courts and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to allow these types of meetings in the context of collective bargaining. An employer can hold a "captive audience" meeting where it requires its employees to attend meetings in which it expresses views on labor organizing, provided that the content of the employer's speech is not coercive in nature. The NLRB has established a limited exception, prohibiting these meetings in the final 24 hours prior to a union election. The Public Employment Relations Commission, which administers state law on public sector labor relations, has adopted a similar restriction for public sector employers.
Federal and state laws governing other aspects of public or private sector employment relationships may affect employer speech in mandatory meetings, depending on the nature of the speech and the context in which it is conveyed. For instance, federal and state antidiscrimination laws may apply if the speech is of a discriminatory nature. Public sector employers may also be limited by certain constitutional restrictions, including, for example, the constitutional restriction against government-sponsored religion.
Restrictions on Certain Mandatory Meetings and Communications.
A private or public employer may not subject or threaten to subject any employee to discipline or discharge, or otherwise penalize or take any adverse employment action against an employee:
"Political matters" means matters relating to elections for political office, political parties, proposals to change legislation, proposals to change regulations, and the decision to join or support any political party or political, civic, community, fraternal, or labor association or organization.
"Religious matters" means matters relating to religious affiliation and practice, and the decision to join or support any religious organization or association.
Civil Action.
An aggrieved employee may bring a civil action within 90 days of the alleged violation. The court may award a prevailing employee all appropriate relief, including injunctive relief, reinstatement, back pay and reestablishment of benefits, and any other appropriate relief considered necessary by the court.
Notices.
An employer must post a notice of employee rights described in the bill in a place normally reserved for employment-related notices and in a place commonly frequented by employees.
Exceptions.
The bill does not apply to any religious entity exempt from the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with respect to speech on religious matters to employees who perform work connected with the activities undertaken by the religious entity.
The bill does not:
(In support) This is a simple bill that allows workers to opt out of meetings involving political or religious speech, and instead continue with their regular job duties. Employers should not be allowed to require workers to attend campaign rallies or other political meetings, and workers should not lose their jobs for refusing to do so. Some workers have been required to attend mandatory meetings where employers express their opinions on labor unions. Employers often use these meetings and targeted communications to intimidate labor organizers with deranged and incorrect stories about unions. Employers do not care about workers. These meetings are not friendly conversations, but instead involve a serious power imbalance between employers and workers. The bill will protect workers from having to attend these illegal meetings.
(Opposed) This bill is unnecessary because there are already protections in place. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and federal and state antidiscrimination laws already protect workers from aggressive and coercive behaviors described by the bill's proponents. Courts are likely to find the bill to be unconstitutional, as it is preempted by the NLRA and infringes upon the free speech rights of employers. Similar laws adopted in Connecticut and other states are already being challenged. While Oregon adopted this law, it has never been implemented due to constitutional concerns.
The bill is overly broad and vague, and it will prevent employers from having important conversations with workers. There may be times where proposals to change laws or rules could effect business operations. For example, a city council may propose changing regulations or zoning requirements that could close a factory or business. There may be instances where a state or local government is proposing a change to licensing or professional regulations, which may be critically important for an employer to share with its employees. The bill would likely prohibit an employer from communicating this important information about the proposal or other current events affecting its business. The bill may also prohibit an employer from discussing the implications of an impending merger with its employees if it involves combining businesses with union-represented staff and unrepresented staff.
The bill could pose significant challenges for the hospitality industry, where some workers provide services at campaign events or religious celebrations. Employers need to be able to require employees to participate in training and other relevant meetings for those events. Employers are also concerned with the bill placing limits on cultural sensitivity and other forms of diversity, equity, and inclusion training.
(Other) There is generally agreement around employers not being able to force their workers to listen to personal political or religious communications. However, the bill does not distinguish between the personal and the professional. Employers need to be able to communicate with their workforce on pending legislation that may affect their profession or business. For example, law enforcement professionals are regulated by state law in multiple ways, and it is important for employers to share information with their workers on changes to those regulations affecting their day-to-day work. This would be critical for any profession or industry regulated by the state.
(In support) Senator Karen Keiser, prime sponsor; Kati Durkin, Washington Federation of State Employees; and Rachel Ybarra, Starbucks Workers United.