California bans mandatory captive audience meetings in 2025
Starting January 1, employers are officially banned from holding captive audience meetings, which are mandatory employer-sponsored meetings that discuss religious or political matters. These meetings have been a common and accepted defense against union organizing. Starting January 1, employers are officially banned from holding captive audience meetings–mandatory employer-sponsored meetings that discuss religious or political matters–which are a common and accepted defense against union organizing.
SB 399, the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act, prohibits employers from taking adverse actions against or threatening such actions against employees who refuse to attend or participate in meetings where an employer would communicate its opinion about religious or political matters which include meetings about unionization. Employers may continue to hold such meetings as long as attendance is voluntary.
The ban will be enforced by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and will allow an employee to seek injunctive relief for violations of the bill and provides for a private right of action to recover damages caused by the alleged adverse action. California employers who force workers to attend anti-unionization meetings will be fined $500 per employee. The bill is opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce and numerous employer and business organizations.
A ban on such meetings would limit an employer’s ability to run an effective counter to a union organizing campaign. Employers often use such meetings to educate employees about the realities of unionization, and their opinion on the subject. The ban does not prohibit employers from holding voluntary meetings about such topics. However, it may limit their rights under Section 8(c), which protects free speech for employers. Therefore, we expect that it will be challenged as unconstitutional under the First Amendment and preempted by the NLRA, as challenges made to similar bans in other states.
Other States Have Passed Similar Bans
California is the tenth state to ban captive audience meetings, joining Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont. These states have passed similar bans to California, which prohibit employers from taking adverse actions against employees who refuse or do not participate in employer meetings that express the employer’s opinion about political and/or labor matters. The Minnesota Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors and National Federation of Independent Business recently survived the State’s Motion to Dismiss challenge, challenging the Minnesota ban based on employer free speech and Preemption grounds. Meanwhile, the US Chamber of Commerce along with a coalition of employer groups filed a lawsuit challenging the Connecticut law; the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is set to be heard on November 18.
State lawmakers in Alaska, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Rhode Island have also introduced captive audience bills in the last year, which remain under consideration.
Captive Audience Bans Are Favored by the Board’s General Counsel
As we reported previously, National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo urged the Board to rule that such captive audience meetings violate the NLRA. This ruling, which is yet to be made, would limit the employer’s right to free speech under 8(c), and reverse 75 years worth of precedent that has allowed such meetings. The Board’s current Democratic majority, and the number recent decisions in favor of unions, will likely agree with General Attorney Abruzzo and hold that mandatory meeting are illegal (assuming no change in administration and the Board maintains a Democratic major).
Key Takeaways
Employers should not count on SB 399 being enjoined before January 1. Consult with local labor counsel for guidance on this evolving area of the law and tailor a compliance strategy for your company that minimizes legal risk under SB 399 and the NLRA if your company decides it wants to communicate about unionization or a union campaign.
Consult with local labor counsel for guidance on this evolving area of the law and tailor a compliance strategy for your company that minimizes legal risk under SB 399 and the NLRA if your company decides it wants to communicate about unionization or a union campaign.
Train your front-line supervisors and managers on the parameters of meetings concerning unionization.
Consider communicating to employees the purpose of any meetings concerning unionization and emphasize the voluntary nature of them (preferably in writing).
- Consider ways for employees to acknowledge the voluntary nature of any meetings that arguably fall under the “captive audience” definition under SB 399 without running afoul to issues under the NLRA (e.g., surveillance or creating the impression of surveillance).
