Business groups are suing the union law that prohibits mandatory anti-union meetings

(Reuters) – The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups filed a lawsuit on Tuesday saying a Connecticut law barring employers from holding mandatory union meetings is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

In their complaint in federal court in Connecticut, the groups said the law, passed earlier this year, violates their free speech rights by preventing businesses from disseminating truthful information and commenting on important issues.

The state law prohibits employers from punishing employees who refuse to attend workplace meetings on “religious or political issues,” which includes the decision to join a union.

So-called “captive audience meetings,” where employers discuss the effects of unionization, are standard in union campaigns and legal under the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). But many unions and labor advocates say employers use the meetings to discuss them. The potential negative effects of joining a union are that it gives them an unfair advantage to encourage unionization.

Tuesday’s lawsuit alleges that the Connecticut law, which limits employers’ ability to provide union information, violates the U.S. Constitution’s right to free speech and assembly. The groups say the law is preempted by the NLRA.

The Chamber, America’s largest business lobby, is joined by the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Retail Federation, Associated Builders and Contractors and several Connecticut-based trade groups.

The Connecticut Department of Labor and Attorney General’s Office, which are named as defendants, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Only Oregon banned captive audience meetings in 2009. The National Labor Relations Board, which enforces the NLRA, challenged the Oregon law in 2020, but a federal judge ruled the agency lacked standing to sue.

In 2008, the Chamber of Commerce and Brown ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a California law prohibiting employers from using government funding to “aid, promote, or inhibit union organizing” was preempted by the NLRA.

Glenn Spencer, the chamber’s senior vice president of employment policy, said in a statement that Connecticut’s ban violates longstanding precedent regarding employers’ free speech rights, as outlined in that case.

“We will continue to protect the right to share opinions with employees so that they can make informed decisions,” Spencer said.

The lawsuit comes as current NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo is asking the five-member board to overturn an 80-year-old precedent allowing closed audience meetings. Democratic President Joe Biden’s nominee, Abruzzo, said in an April memo that he hopes the meetings will prevent workers from exercising their right to opt out of listening to anti-union messages.

Abruzzo’s office filed a complaint in May that Amazon.com Inc. violated the NLRA by holding open-audience meetings at a New York City warehouse, the company’s first since the merger. Amazon has denied the allegations.

The case is United States Chamber of Commerce v. Bartolomeo, US District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3: 22-cv-01373.

For the teams: Brian Killian from Morgan Lewis and Bockius; Liler Mendelssohn Maurice Baskin.

For Connecticut: Not available

Read more:

Why does the labor board want to free the ‘imprisoned’ workers from the bosses message

NLRB Takes Second Step to Overturn Oregon’s ‘Captive Audience’ Meeting Law

Labor Board Official Finds Captive Amazon Workers’ Anti-Union Meetings Illegal

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.