NLRB Rulings Limit Employer Communication to Employees Regarding Unionization

December 11, 2024

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) made a ruling on November 8, 2024, stating that employers can no longer warn employees generally that strain or negative impact on their relationship with management would be an effect of unionizing.


The precedent set in the 1985 Tri-Cast decision was overturned by this ruling. Under the Tri-Cast ruling, it was found that it was lawful for employers to make statements generally estimating the negative impact that unionization would have regarding an employee’s ability to address any issues directly with their employer.


Employers are now advised to steer clear of any union communications to employees that could be perceived by an employee as threatening in any way in regard to unionization and its possible effects.


Further, the NLRB made a related ruling on November 13, 2094, that held that captive audience meetings, i.e. meetings in which the employer expresses its views of unionization, are violative of existing labor law. This prohibition exists regardless of whether the meeting will support or oppose unionization. However, employers can still have these meetings if the employer 1) notifies employees that the meeting will discuss the employer’s views on unionization, 2) that attendance is voluntary and that employees will not be subject to discipline for not attending or remaining at the meeting, and 3) no records of attendance will be kept. Both of these rulings only apply to future cases in front of the NLRB.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Royal Law at Thunderbirds Hockey Playoff Game in the Executive Perch

April 21, 2025
Friday April 18th: Amy Royal, Fred Royal, and Derek Brown attended the Springfield Thunderbirds playoff game! They enjoyed watching the Thunderbirds play the Charlotte Checkers from the Executive Perch.

Massachusetts Wage Act: Not Even a Single Day Delay

April 18, 2025
Employee's Wage Act Claim Case Overview : In Turgut v. Hitachi Rail STS USA, Inc., Plaintiff filed a putative class action against a company, Defendant, alleging violation of the Wage Act by not paying wages within six days of the pay period's end. Defendant argued that its employees fell under the exception that allowed seven days for payment; however that exception only applies to hourly workers that work all seven days of a work week. The plaintiff is looking to represent a class of employees that received W-2 wages in what he alleges was in an untimely manner. The case was originally filed in state court on February 20, 2025 but was moved to federal court. Reason for Treble Damages: Under Rueter v. City of Methuen, the seminal case regarding the Massachusetts Wage Act (“Wage Act”), the proper measure of damages under the Wage Act is treble damages. Previously employees were only entitled to interest on the unpaid wages if the company paid before proceedings started. It kept noncompliance from being as costly as it is now. Currently any violation can be subjected to treble damages for the total amount of the alleged late payment. It’s expected that we will see more cases pick up by attorneys because the treble damages make it worthwhile for their clients as well as themselves, given this recent ruling. Judge's Ruling : The Judge ruled that the six-day deadline applies. The Judge stated that while the complaint didn’t make it clear if plaintiff is hourly or salary, plaintiff only worked five days a week, meaning that the seven-day exception did not apply as the Wage Act was written. Legal Implications Legislative History : The Wage Act provides different deadlines for an employee’s final pay based on the number of days worked in a week. This case also emphasizes that having salaried workers on staff does not fulfill the requirement of having employees work seven days a week. Significance of One Day : The judge emphasized that even a single day's delay in payment can significantly impact employees living paycheck to paycheck. What Employers need to know Make sure you’re aware of your employees’ pay cycle and make compliance a company priority. It’s more cost effective to pay a day or two earlier than it is to head to court over claims of violations. This ruling expands on the Reuter ruling by clarifying the Wage Act rules in relation to hourly employees. If an hourly employee resigns, ensure that automatic payment systems (as well as the employer’s own internal pay systems) are aligned with the requirements of this ruling. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.