REPORT ON BILLS FAVORABLY REPORTED BY COMMITTEE

TITLE OF BILL:

AN ACT CONCERNING EMPLOYER COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT POLITICS, RELIGION OR LABOR ORGANIZING ACTIVITIES.

SPONSORS OF BILL:

REASONS FOR BILL:

This bill prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend employer-sponsored meetings to hear the employer’s opinion about religious, political, or union-organizing matters, i.e. “captive audience” meetings. The bill covers all private sector employers, and the state and its political subdivisions. It expressly covers research assistants, research fellows, teaching assistants, post-doctoral fellows, interns and residents at colleges and universities and hospitals that qualify their host towns for state payments in lieu of taxes.

The bill exempts political, union-related, or religious communication at required meetings if the matter discussed is required by law, and only to the extent of the legal requirement. The substitute language exempts the following organizations from requiring employees to attend meetings for the following reasons (1) religious organizations – to communicate the employer’s religious beliefs, practices, or tenets, (2) political organizations -- to communicate the employer’s political tenets or purposes, and (3) educational institutions – attend lectures on political or religious matters that are part of the coursework.

RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, supports this bill, as it protects employees from coercion by an employer to attend mandatory meetings to discuss religious, political or labor organization issues, but does not prohibit an employer from holding meetings to discuss these topics. While the Attorney General acknowledges that the bill may possibly be vulnerable to a legal challenge that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts this bill, neither court nor the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a definitive ruling on the applicability of federal law to captive audience laws.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:

Senator Martin M. Looney, 11^th District, supports this bill. This bill would prevent employers from firing or disciplining employees who choose not to attend employer meetings about religion, political, or labor organizing issues. Under current state law, physical restraint by an employer against an employee is actionable, however a threat to fire an employee is not actionable. Senator Looney believes that this bill is not inconsistent with the NLRA. Senator Looney made suggestions for changes that were incorporated in the JFS language.

Daniel Livingston, Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, representing state employee unions and the United Auto Workers, supports this bill, as it would help recognize the right of people to work without becoming the political property of the employer while at work. He notes that the employer/employee relationship is better described as master/servant, as there are few limits on what employers can require of employees while working. There are no restrictions on subjecting workers to political or religious viewpoints. The bill would ensure that employers only use their power to compel employees to listen to information about their work, and not information on the employer’s political or social point of view.

Fred Feinstein, University of Maryland School of Public Policy, supports this bill. During his six-year tenure as General Counsel of the NLRB, Mr. Feinstein often considered whether state actions were preempted by the NLRA. Mr. Feinstein believes that a strong case can be made that the bill is not pre-empted by the NLRA and believes that the courts would agree with this opinion. Federal labor law should not limit Connecticut’s ability to establish the minimum labor standard proposed in the legislation. This legislation would protect an employee from economic sanction if an employee chooses not to listen to an employer’s political or religious views.

Michael Denning, Professor of American Studies and Director, Initiative on Labor and Culture, Yale University, supports this bill. This bill explicitly extends protections to graduate teaching and research assistants, such as those at Yale University, who have long struggled to unionize but are not granted the protections of the NLRA. In 2000, the NLRB unanimously granted university teaching assistants full protection under the NLRA, but a 3 to 2 ruling in 2004 reversed this decision, a reversal that he feels was a purely political decision by the Bush administration. Mr. Denning believes that research assistants are crucial to the functioning of modern universities and are clearly deserving of the same rights as other workers.

Michael J. Wishnie, Professor of Clinical Law and Acting Director, Arthur Garfield Hays Civil Liberties Program, New York University, and a visiting professor at Yale University, supports this bill. He believes that captive audience meetings are a form of false imprisonment, as actual force is not needed to constitute false imprisonment, only an implied threat of force. Connecticut courts have not yet ruled whether the fear of being fired constitutes an implied threat of court. This bill would ensure that employers could not subject employees to such threats.

Lori Pelletier, CT AFL-CIO, supports this bill, as managers often will script captive audience meetings to ensure that they are lawful by making “predictions” instead of “threats”.

Donald D’Amato, Legislative Director, Connecticut State Council of Machinists, supports this bill. Often, employees want to unionize, but after being intimidated by employers and union busting consultants, elections will fail.

Beverly Brakeman, Director, Citizens for Economic Opportunity, supports this bill, as it would help workers.

Eda diBiccari, Lead Organizer, SEIU Local 760, supports this bill. She offered the experience of bus drivers in Bristol who tried to unionize. The drivers were subjected to captive audience meetings while they were driving busses.

Lee Mabry, employee, Chef Solutions, supports the bill, as employees of Chef Solutions have been trying to unionize for years, but captive audience meetings and other violations of the law (which were cited by the NLRB), have made the process much more difficult.

Brian Anderson, AFSCME Council 4, supports this bill.

NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:

Kyra Nesteriak, Connecticut business and Industry Association (CBIA), opposes this bill. Ms. Nesteriak believes that this bill is preempted by federal law, and that employees and employers are currently offered fair protections under the NLRA. She notes that in the in May Department Store Decision, the NLRB ruled that the employer could not hold a captive audience before an election on whether to unionize unless union representatives were given equal time. She believes that, contrary to the Attorney General’s testimony, any state law regarding captive audiences would be preempted by federal law.

Judith Greiman, Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges opposes this bill. She believes that it would directly interfere with federal law and, more importantly for her organization, she believes that the bill would grant employee status to groups of students (medical residents and graduate students) who are not currently considered employees. Other concerns were addressed by JFS language.

Connecticut Association of Not-for-profit Providers for the Aging opposes this bill. CANPFA notes that many of its members are faith-based organizations and their employees must often accompany elderly patients to religious services and events. CANPFA feels that the bill would impede the ability of employees to perform their jobs.

John G. Zandy, Partner, Wiggin and Dana, on behalf of the Connecticut Hospital Association, opposes this bill. Mr. Zandy believes that Section 8(c) of the NLRA guarantees free speech for employers and employees alike, including mandatory meetings regarding labor-organizing activities. He also feels that the bill would be unfair if it limited employer rights but put no restrictions on unions’ speech.

Marie Hilliard, Connecticut Catholic Conference, opposes this bill. She believes that the bill would violate the US Constitution’s guarantees to the free exercise of religion. The bill would prevent the Connecticut Catholic Conference, which employs thousands across the state, from communicating its mission with those it serves.

Marshall Collins, representing the Alliance of Connecticut YMCAs, opposes this bill. The CT YMCAs feel that their mission of providing services to children and families would be compromised if they were forced to limit employer communications.

SBC Connecticut opposes this bill as it has concerns that it would prohibit legitimate communications between employer and employee.

Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce opposes this bill and any attempt to limit the ability of employers to communicate with employees about labor organizing.