Skip to main content

NLRB Files Suit Against Oregon In Regard to State's "Captive Audience" Prohibition


Earlier this month, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") filed suit against the state of Oregon, seeking to invalidate a statute in the state that protects employees from adverse employment actions that refuse to attend lawful, compulsory meetings held by employers during organizing campaigns. 

Since ORS 659.785(1) was enacted in 2010, an employer in the state is prohibited from discharging, disciplining or otherwise penalizing an employee, or threatening to do the same because the employee "declines to attend or participate in an employer-sponsored meeting or communication with the employer...if the primary purpose of the meeting or communication is to communicate the opinion of the employer about...political matters."  Note, "political matters" is defined as including "the decision to join, not join, support or not any lawful political or constituent group" with "constituent group" including labor organizations.

For reference, these meetings are often referred to as "captive audience" meetings and occur during the working time of the employee when the employer presents its views on unions.  The meetings can occur at any time during the organizing campaign except for the 24 hour period before the election occurs.  Unions have long argued that these meetings give employers an unfair advantage and have sought to have them barred altogether.  (ORS 659.785(1) in essence does that.)

This particular lawsuit arises out of a June 2019 union election involving the Teamsters and an employer in the state.  The employer sought to stay the election on the grounds that it was prohibited from making captive audience meetings in order to comply with ORS 659.785(1).  Although this stay request was denied, it enabled the issues related to ORS 659.785(1) to be raised in any post-election proceeding.  (The Teamsters did not secure enough votes in the actual election itself.)

In essence, the NLRB argues that ORS 659.785(1) is preempted under Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon (a 1959 case from the United States Supreme Court) which held that state and local governments are barred from regulating activities that are otherwise regulated under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").  Consequently, the NLRB has pointed out that ORS 659.785(1) is preempted because the NLRB has exclusive control over union election proceedings.  (Section 8(c) of the NLRA permits employers to express their views on unions, so long as that "expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.)



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more