Board Rules Captive-Audience Meetings Unlawful

November 13, 2024 Today, the Board issued a decision in Amazon.com Services LLC, ruling that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act by requiring employees under threat of discipline or discharge to attend meetings in which the employer expresses its views on unionization. Overruling Babcock & Wilcox Co., 77 NLRB 577 (1948), the Board explained that such meetings—commonly known as captive-audience meetings—violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act because they have a reasonable tendency to interfere with and coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. However, the Board made clear that an employer may lawfully hold meetings with workers to express its views on unionization so long as workers are provided reasonable advance notice of: the subject of any such meeting, that attendance is voluntary with no adverse consequences for failure to attend, and that no attendance records of the meeting will be kept. The Board articulated several reasons why captive audience meetings interfere with employees’ rights under the Act, thus violating Section 8(a)(1). First, such meetings interfere with an employee’s right under Section 7 of the Act to freely decide whether, when, and how to participate in a debate concerning union representation, or refrain from doing so. Second, captive audience meetings provide a mechanism for an employer to observe and surveil employees as it addresses the exercise of employees’ Section 7 rights. Finally, an employer’s ability to compel attendance at such meetings on pain of discipline or discharge lends a coercive character to the message regarding unionization that employees are forced to receive. The employer’s ability to require attendance at such meetings demonstrates the employer’s economic power over its employees and reasonably tends to inhibit them from acting freely in exercising their rights. The Board made clear that this change in the governing standard will be applied prospectively only, to appropriately accommodate the reasonable reliance employers may have previously placed on Babcock & Wilcox. “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. 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,” said Chairman Lauren McFerran. “Today’s decision better protects workers’ freedom to make their own choices in exercising their rights under the Act, while ensuring that employers can convey their views about unionization in a noncoercive manner.” Members Prouty and Wilcox joined Chairman McFerran in issuing the decision. Member Kaplan dissented.

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angele

A decision by the Office of the Inspector General to implement Penal Code §13670 is not subject to bargaining, but the effects of that decision and the manner in which the county implements that decision are; a union showed a probability of prevailing on its claim that a directive for law enforcement officers to cooperate in an investigation into law enforcement gangs triggered the duty to meet and confer with the officers’ union. Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles - filed Nov. 20, 2024, Second District, Div. Five Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 3686 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1124//B331881.

Board Restores Prior Standard Governing Employer Statements about Unionization’s Impact on Employer-Employee Relationship

November 08, 2024 Today, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision in Siren Retail Corp d/b/a Starbucks, overruling Tri-Cast, Inc., 274 NLRB 377 (1985) and clarifying the test that the Board will use to evaluate whether employer predictions about the impact of unionization on the relationship between individual employees and their employer are unlawful threats. While Tri-Cast deemed most employer statements about the impact of unionization on the relationship between individual employees and their employer to be categorically lawful, moving forward the Board will analyze such statements under the same longstanding test it uses to evaluate other potentially threatening or coercive statements. That approach, which is grounded in the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), mandates that – to be lawful – employer predictions of negative impacts from unionization “must be carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to convey an employer’s belief as to demonstrably probable consequences beyond [its] control.” If such a prediction is not grounded in objective fact, or predicts negative consequences that would result from the employer’s own actions, it is “no longer a reasonable prediction based on available facts but a threat of retaliation based on misrepresentation and coercion.” The Board made clear that this change in the governing standard will be applied prospectively only, to appropriately accommodate the reasonable reliance employers may have previously placed on Tri-Cast’s categorical rule. “The rule that we return to today brings greater consistency to the Board’s approach in evaluating potentially threatening statements,” said Chairman Lauren McFerran. “By evaluating employer predictions regarding unionization in a careful and case-specific manner, the Board better protects workers’ right to make a free and fair choice about union representation while respecting an employer’s prerogative to share their views in a non-coercive manner.”

Bedard v. City of Los Angeles - filed Oct. 31, 2024, Second District, Div. Three

Administrative Law Substantial evidence supported a trial court’s conclusion that a police officer was terminated due to her refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine; the City of Los Angeles lawfully passed a legal ordinance requiring all city employees to become vaccinated against COVID-19 or request an exemption and follow the testing procedures. Bedard v. City of Los Angeles - filed Oct. 31, 2024, Second District, Div. Three Cite as 2024 S.O.S. 3490 Full text click here >http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1124//B331062