Currently awaiting a 3rd reading, the Employer Meeting and Communication Act (Act), is sponsored by State Senator Gary Forby. Senator Forby is a Democrat from south-central Illinois and Chairperson of the Senate’s Labor Committee. The Act was introduced on January 18, 2006.

As it currently reads, the Act prohibits employers, including employer representatives or agents, “from requiring employees to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or participate in communications to communicate the employer’s opinion about religious or political matters; [it] also prohibits discharging, disciplining, penalizing, or threatening an employee as a means of requiring an employee to attend such a meeting or participate in such communications or because the employee or a person acting on the employee’s behalf makes a good faith report of a violation of the Act.” “Political matters includes [sic] political party affiliation or the decision to join or not join any lawful political, social, or community group or activity or any labor organization.”

If passed, the Act would apply to all employers in Illinois. Complaints are brought directly to civil court within 90 days after the alleged violation. Violations are costly. Awards and damages include rehiring, reinstatement to former position, back pay and benefits. Moreover, if the employee wins, the employee shall receive triple damages plus attorney’s fees and costs. Because of the triple damages and the restrictions on workplace communications, the Act is more limiting and punitive than the employer prohibitions contained in the National Labor Relations Act.

The Act is terrible law and human resources policy because most workplace related problems are caused by communication problems, and this Act severely restricts communication. Businesses aren’t going to risk violating the law and paying triple damages. So, employers will limit workplace communications. Doesn’t an employer have the right to protect its business from 3rd party interference such as labor unions and worker associations? Haven’t we learned anything from the lessons of the domestic auto, auto parts, construction and metals industries? Furthermore, what if an employer wants to confer with employees concerning workplace conflict due to external religious or political issues seeping into the workplace? This exact thing happened after September 11, 2001, and continues to happen regarding a wide-ranging variety of issues (e.g., homeland security, diversity, xenophobia, tolerance).

The language “participate in any communications with the employer” would seem to even prohibit an employer from disseminating printed materials to employees explaining the company’s position on even charities or community groups (as many of these organizations have faith-based or political components to them). Consequently, the Act may result in fewer employers from engaging in charity or community action.

The Act also creates and exacerbates workplace conflict. Employees could claim that attempts to discuss substance usage (e.g., drugs, alcohol, etc.) or charity are attempts by their employer to “communicate the employee’s opinion about religious or political matters.” Furthermore, employer sponsored voting drives or attempts to unseat anti-business politicians (e.g., Forby) are probably illegal under the Act. What should an employer do if a politician sponsors legislation that’s unfavorable to a particular business or industry? Is that employer just supposed to sit in silence and not encourage its employees to fight for their company and jobs? Should employers join or contract with employer associations or organizations to communicate to employees about issues affecting its industry and business? Is this even legal under the Act?

All in all this is a poorly disguised attempt to pander to labor unions and employee associations and further create excessive government intrusion into business. Federal law already restricts employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of union and concerted activity and religion.

Here’s a link to the bill and legislative history. I’m sending Senator Forby a copy of this article and requesting his response, which I will post.