Phil Wilson on why the California captive-audience meetings ruling is only part of the picture
In a recent SHRM article, Court Raises Questions About California’s Captive-Audience Law, LRI Consulting Services, Inc. (LRICS) CEO and General Counsel Phil Wilson weighed in on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta. The court found that California’s Senate Bill 399, which restricts employers from requiring employees to attend meetings on religious or political matters, including union organizing, violates employers’ First Amendment right to free speech. The law took effect Jan. 1, 2025.
Wilson called Bonta “a very important decision” and noted that the court also rejected several arguments states have used to justify similar restrictions. Employers still have federal law to consider, and several questions remain open:
- The NLRB’s rule is still in place: In Amazon.com Services LLC (Nov. 2024), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that employers generally violate federal law when they require employees to attend meetings on unionization under threat of discipline or discharge. As Wilson put it, “California employers still must be mindful of the current NLRB precedent.” That precedent is being challenged as well.
- The reach beyond California is unsettled: Wilson pointed to the effect on other states in the Ninth Circuit, whether federal appeals courts elsewhere adopt similar reasoning, and how the ruling could affect the NLRB’s restrictions, given the overlapping legal justifications.
- Standing is the biggest hurdle: Limited state enforcement makes it hard for challengers to get into court. Wilson said, “The biggest problem with these cases so far is getting a court to find standing.” He cited the Minnesota litigation, where the attorney general’s commitment not to enforce the law affected the challenge.
Until the competing interpretations are resolved, Wilson recommends that employers consult legal counsel before requiring employees to attend meetings about unionization.
Read more of Wilson’s insight at SHRM: Court Raises Questions About California’s Captive-Audience Law
