In November 2024, in Amazon.com Services LLC, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that an employer violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it requires employees to attend meetings in which the employer expresses its views on unionization. The Board’s decision overruled nearly 80 years of law that allowed employers to conduct meetings to assembled employees where it expressed its views on unionization, which are commonly called captive-audience meetings. Here’s what you need to know:

What Did the Board Decide?

An employer violates the Act when it compels employees to attend a captive-audience meeting under threat of discipline or discharge. While the Act states that an employer may lawfully express its “views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof,” that expression must contain no “threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” 29 U.S.C.  158(c). The Board concluded that forcing employees to attend meetings in which the employer’s views about unionization are discussed includes a threat of reprisal and otherwise interferes with employees’ rights under the Act. The Board also reasoned that the First Amendment lets an employer express its views or opinions, but it does not require that a person be forced to listen to those views or opinions under the threat of discipline or discharge.

In order to protect employers who have previously relied on the decades old precedent allowing captive audience meetings, the Board’s ban on captive audience speeches will only apply prospectively.

Why Does This Matter?

Employers often hold required meetings with employees to educate them about safety, changes in policies, and employee benefits. Requiring employees to attend these meetings is important because it focuses employees’ attention on matters that are important to the operation of the employer’s business. When an employer believes unionization is important to the operation of its business, it will want to conduct similar meetings to express its opinion and focus employee attention on that opinion. These meetings are a crucial tool to focus employees’ attention on the potential consequences of unionization they are unlikely to hear from a union. The Board recognized that, in a study of 1,000 Board-supervised representation elections, 89 percent of employers held captive audience meetings and more than half of employers held over five meetings before elections. The Board’s ruling reduces the opportunities an employer may have to focus employees’ attention on the pros and cons of unionizing.

Are All Meetings About Unionization Unlawful?

No. The Board included a “safe harbor” in its decision that lets an employer conduct a captive-audience meeting of assembled employees without violating the National Labor Relations Act. An employer will not violate the Act if it gives advance notice to employees that:

1. The employer intends to express its views on unionization at a meeting at which attendance is voluntary;
2. Employees will not be subject to discipline, discharge, or other adverse consequences for failing to attend the meeting or for leaving the meeting; and
3. The employer will not keep records of which employees attend, fail to attend, or leave the meeting.

Complying with the safe harbor will make sure the holding of the meeting itself is lawful. It does not, however, protect any unlawful statements made during the meeting.

The Board also declined to address the General Counsel’s argument that all required meetings with employees about unionization, such as unscheduled one-on-one encounters between an agent of the employer and an employee. Instead, the Board’s decision is directed at traditional captive-audience meetings involving assembled employees. While the Board’s decision does not address other meetings between managers and employees about unionization (e.g., unscheduled one-on-one encounters), the decision implies that a threat of discipline or discharge for failing to participate in the encounter is unlawful. The Board’s decision included two practical points about when a captive-audience meeting is “mandatory” and unlawful:

• An express order from a supervisor, manager, or other agent of the employer to attend such a meeting is enough, but not always necessary, to establish a violation.
• Attendance at a meeting that is included on employees’ work schedules, as communicated by a supervisor, manager, or other agent of the employer, will be considered to be compelled.

The Board’s decision focused significantly on meetings that are required based on the explicit or implied threat of discipline for failing to participate. It did not, however, change existing laws that permit employers to provide de minimis incentives for employees to attend meetings, such as snacks and drinks. Employers must be creative in providing lawful incentives that encourage employees to voluntarily attend meetings in which the employer’s opinion on unionization is discussed. 

Will the Change in Administration Result in a Reversal of Today’s Decision?

Maybe, but not immediately. There are three Democratic members on the five-member Board. Chair Lauren McFerran (D) has been awaiting a floor vote since a Senate committee signed off on her nomination in August. If the full Senate reconfirms McFerran, then Democratic board members would keep the majority into 2026 and it would be unlikely that the Board would reverse itself before then. If McFerran is not reconfirmed, the confirmation process for two new Republican members will take time. Once a Republican majority is seated on the Board, a proper case for reversing the new rule must come before the Board. So, the Board’s decision outlawing captive-audience meetings will likely not change right after President Trump’s inauguration in January.