WASHINGTON, D.C.—The U.S. Chamber of Commerce presented arguments to the Supreme Court today in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Brown, a case challenging a California law that restricts employers’ rights to speak to their employees about unionization. 

“By regulating employer speech, California is putting its thumb on the scale in the debate over unionization,” said Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center (NCLC).  “Federal labor law encourages open and robust debate about unionization.  California’s law stifles that debate by making it totally one-sided.” 

Enacted in 2000 in response to union lobbying efforts, California Assembly Bill (AB) 1889 expressly prohibits employers from using state grant and program funds to “to assist, promote, or deter union organizing.” California AB 1889 includes employer attempts to influence employees as well as subcontractors and applies to legal expenses, consulting fees and salaries of supervisors. California law subjects employers to burdensome accounting regulations, onerous recordkeeping requirements, treble damages, private rights of actions and attorneys fees.  Though California feigns that the law treats unions and employers equally, the pro-union exceptions to  AB 1889 underscore the anti-employer slant of the law: state funds may be used to circumvent secret-ballot elections by entering into so-called voluntary recognitions agreements (otherwise known as card-check or “neutrality” agreements) with a union; and employers may use state funds to allow union access to the employer’s property and in connection with grievance handling and certain collective bargaining-relate activities.

“At least 15 other states are poised to enact laws that similarly restrict federally protected employer speech about unionization, depending on the outcome of this litigation,” Conrad noted.  “The high court needs to send a message that states cannot use their spending power to interfere in areas that Congress intended to be left unregulated.”

Motions and briefs related to Chamber of Commerce v. Brown are available through the Chamber’s website: