Hiltzik: A fatuous anti-union lawsuit from the California Chamber of Commerce

It’s always heartening to see the business establishment stand up for constitutional principles.

Well, almost always. Among the exceptions is when business leaders wrap themselves in the Constitution to secure their own privileges at the expense of the public interest.

That’s the case with a curious little lawsuit the California Chamber of Commerce and California Restaurant Assn. dropped in Sacramento federal court on New Year’s Eve. Their target is Senate Bill 399, otherwise known as the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act, which was signed by Gov. Newsom on Sept. 27 and took effect on New Year’s Day.

The law is straightforward. It bans “captive audience meetings,” which are those scheduled by employers to ply workers with religious, political and (especially) anti-union propaganda. Nothing in the law bars employers from holding such meetings when worker attendance is voluntary. The “captive” part, the law specifies, is when employees face “discharge, discrimination, retaliation, or any other adverse action” for failing to attend.

As my colleague Suhauna Hussain has reported, 10 other states have implemented similar bans. So far, they’ve survived legal challenges. Bans on captive meetings are under consideration in at least five other states. They also were outlawed by the National Labor Relations Board with a ruling on Nov. 13, overturning an anti-union policy dating from 1948. The 3-1 ruling, with the board’s Democratic members in the majority and its sole Republican in dissent, involved Amazon.com’s campaign against a union organizing drive at New York-area facilities. Amazon has said it will appeal the ruling.

Captive audience meetings are among “the most pernicious and coercive tactics an employer can use to browbeat and intimidate workers into voting against a union,” says William B. Gould IV, an emeritus professor of law at Stanford and a former chairman of the NLRB and the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board.

The NLRB’s November ruling applied to captive meetings involving unionization drives, which fall within the board’s jurisdiction. The California law goes further by bringing meetings involving political and religious matters into the mix. But the state laws and the NLRB’s ruling make the same distinctions between meetings at which attendance is voluntary, and those that workers are required to attend on pain of discipline. The first are legal, the second illegal.

Since they were seemingly blessed by the NLRB in 1948, captive audience meetings have become “a common feature” of corporate anti-union campaigns, the board observed in the Amazon case. A 2009 study of 1,004 NLRB-supervised union representation elections cited in its ruling found that captive audience meetings had been held in 89% of cases; more than half of the employers had held more than five “in the runup to an election.”

The Amazon campaign is a good example. In opposing the unionization drive, which was ultimately successful, Amazon scheduled mandatory meetings every 45 minutes, six days a week at the Staten Island, N.Y., warehouse where the drive originated. At these meetings, company representatives delivered speeches attacking unions in general and the Amazon union drive specifically.

The NLRB found that “managers personally notified employees that they were scheduled to attend, escorted them to the meetings, and scanned their ID badges to digitally record attendance.”

Amazon’s activities prompted the board to reconsider the 1948 policy, which was set forth in a case involving the boiler company Babcock & Wilcox. The board noted that the 1948 finding that captive audience meetings didn’t violate labor law was “largely unexplained” and “flawed” under the law. So it was bound to be overturned.

In its detailed analysis of the topic, the board cited numerous past board rulings and Supreme Court decisions that say that employers have the right to express their opinions about unions and unionization, but not to compel employees to listen.

“It should be clear,” the board found, “that a captive-audience meeting is an extraordinary exercise and demonstration of employer power over employees,” especially when the employees’ decisions on whether to join the union is at issue.

That brings us back to the lawsuit the Chamber and Restaurant Assn. filed in Sacramento federal court. The lawsuit asserts that any ban on mandatory meetings infringes the employers’ free-speech rights as enshrined in the 1st Amendment. (State officials haven’t yet filed a response.)

“Because of SB 399,” the plaintiffs say, “employers in California are now subject to liability, penalties, and other administrative action when they exercise their federal constitutional and statutory rights to talk to employees.”

We think the plaintiffs do protest too much, to quote Shakespeare. The California law does nothing of the kind.

“Under the bill, employers are not prevented from speaking to employees in any way on any subject, including about religious and political matters,” the AFL-CIO stated in a legal memo for the California Labor Federation, which supports the law.

It’s worth remembering that employers — notably restaurant owners — aren’t above using dubious claims to attack pro-worker initiatives. Back in June, I reported that fast food franchise owners asserted that California’s $20 minimum wage for fast food workers had cost the state 10,000 jobs in that sector, going back to September 2023, when Newsom signed the law.

I documented that the statistic was false; it was the product of a misinterpretation of government employment statistics that appeared initially in the Wall Street Journal and was repeated by UCLA economics professor Lee Ohanian for an essay on the Hoover Institution website. (Hoover subsequently retracted Ohanian’s essay, which had been specifically cited by the fast food camp for a newspaper ad.)

The plaintiffs may have a stronger argument in their assertion that California’s law governing employer rights in unionization cases is preempted by federal law, namely the 1935 National Labor Relations Act.

The AFL-CIO memo argues that California, like any state, has the right to set “minimum employment standards” for workers in the state. The examples it cites, however, are matters such as child labor laws, minimum wages and occupational safety and health standards, though it also maintains that since states can bar the firing of workers for improper reasons such as race, it can bar discharges for failing to attend a mandatory meeting.

Gould, for one, thinks the plaintiffs may have a point, based on a 1959 Supreme Court ruling that gave the NLRB exclusive jurisdiction over unionization issues unless the board disavows an interest. The issue might well be headed for the Supreme Court for another look.

That might not matter if the NLRB’s decision in the Amazon case stands. But a Trump-dominated labor board, which appears to be preordained, could overturn the Amazon ruling, just as the Biden board overturned Babcock & Wilcox. That might not be the worst change in labor policy for workers as Trump succeeds Biden, who may have been the most pro-union president in history. But it won’t be good.