In a strange twist to the usual employee-employer dispute, the National Labor Relations Board sued Oregon on February 7, claiming that the state’s laws interfere with the board’s ability to ensure fair labor negotiations.
Founded in 1935 as part of FDR’s New Deal, the National Labor Relations Board is an independent agency of the federal government which enforces labor laws, specifically focusing on laws relating to collective bargaining and labor practices. The NLBR’s job is to keep a fine balance between employees and employers, making sure that neither group holds too much power over the other.
In this case, the NLRB has claimed that a specific Oregon statute prevents them from presiding over employee-employer relations during union organization.
The statute in question, 2010’s ORS 659.785(1), states that an employer may not discharge, discipline, or otherwise penalize an employee because the employee declines to attend or participate in an employer-sponsored meeting, if the meeting’s “main purpose is to communicate the opinion of the employer about religious or political matters.” The main contention from the NLRB is about that final part regarding “political matters,” as labor organizations and unions fall under this category.
However, under Section 8(c) the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, employers are permitted to hold mandatory meetings in which they can express their opinions on the unionization process. These meetings are often negatively referred to as “captive audience” meetings, and allow the employer a clear-cut method sharing their opinions with their entire base of employees.
This sounds a bit backwards at first, especially when covered in legal jargon. In a basic sense, the NLRB’s argument is that, by disallowing employers a surefire way to express their opinions on unionization to their employees, Oregon has hindered the NLRB’s ability to regulate employee-employer relations and ensure fair labor. This is a matter of state law contradicting federal law in a manner that’s potentially harmful, supposedly forcing employers into a catch-22.
However, it’s important to note that this isn’t the only Oregon statute that directly conflicts with the NLRA. For example, ORS 662.215(1) prohibits employers from hiring replacement workers should union members go on strike, an act known as “strikebreaking.” It’s just that these other contradictory statutes haven’t received the same amount of complaints as the one regarding captive audiences.
Union members have decried these mandatory meetings, stating that they give too much power to employers. Employers have responded by stating that all employees are fairly compensated for attending the meetings.
The NLRB’s litigation is currently ongoing. The Deputy Attorney General responded to the NLRB’s claims, stating that his office would continue to defend the state statute.
By Thomas Nguyen
Do you have a story for The Advocate? Email editor@corvallisadvocate.com