Washington is one of eight states1 with a law prohibiting employers from holding mandatory meetings addressing their position on religion, politics, and union organizing. The new statute makes it illegal for any employer to require employees to:
- Attend or participate in an employer-sponsored meeting with the employer or its agent, representative, or designee, the primary purpose of which is to communicate the employer's opinion concerning religious or political matters; or
- Listen to speech or view communications, including electronic communications, the primary purpose of which is to communicate the employer's opinion concerning religious or political matters.
The statute defines "religious matters" as "matters relating to religious affiliation and practice, and the decision to join or support any religious organization or association." Its definition of "political matters" includes "matters relating to elections for political office, political parties, proposals to change legislation, proposals to change regulations, and the decision to join or support any political party or political, civic, community, fraternal, or labor association or organization."
The statute also contains a notice posting requirement.
Employees whose employers violate the statute may seek to enforce their rights in civil court within 90 days of the alleged violation. The remedies in civil court include reinstatement, backpay and benefits, injunctive relief, and other relief considered necessary by the court.
To date, no Washington court has considered a case involving the Employee Free Choice Act.
Importantly, it remains to be seen whether the new law will survive preemption challenges, as the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) allows for employer-organized mandatory meetings during working hours with the purpose of expressing views about unionization. Such meetings have been widely considered lawful since 1947 under Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act. Section 8(c) provides:
The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of a [violation of] any of the provisions of this Act . . . if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.
Notably, the General Counsel of the NLRB likewise has signaled her intent to outlaw such meetings in a public Memorandum. Specifically, she explained that "[f]orcing employees to listen to such employer speech under threat of discipline – directly leveraging the employees' dependence on their jobs – plainly chills employees' protected right to refrain from listening to this speech in violation of [the Act]." Mandatory meetings about union organizing remain lawful under the NLRA to date, but the NLRB is presently reviewing several cases, any one of which may reverse more than 75 years of precedent.
Washington employers should carefully consider their legal risk if they fail to comply with the statute while the legality of this law and similar state laws is in flux. Employers that do not make any such meetings (or portions of such meetings) addressing potential religious, political, or union-related matters voluntary, and that do not ensure employees know these meetings are voluntary, face significant legal risk in Washington's federal and state courts right now. Notably, even under the new law, employers may continue to require attendance at meetings necessary for employees to perform their job duties.
Washington employers with questions about Washington's Employee Free Choice Act or whether a potential meeting is covered by it should contact a labor and employment lawyer. Seyfarth's Seattle office can assist employers with these and any other labor and employment law needs.
Footnote
1. Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, and Vermont also have comparable statutes in effect. Illinois' equivalent statute becomes effective on January 1, 2025.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
