New Jersey is one of 12 states with prohibitions on captive audience communications
Employers in New Jersey should be aware that, effective December 2, 2025, they will no longer be able to hold mandatory employer-sponsored meetings meant to discuss union organizing activity. On September 3, 2025, New Jersey Gov. Murphy signed New Jersey Act 4429 (the "Act"), which extends the prohibition on required employer-sponsored meetings to include an "employee's decision to join or support" a "labor organization or association."
Protected Rights
With the newly enacted revisions, it is unlawful for an employer to fire, threaten to fire, or otherwise discipline or threaten to discipline employees for their refusal to: (1) participate in an employer-sponsored meeting meant to discuss union organizing activity; or (2) communicate with their employer regarding union organizing activity.
The Act provides a private cause of action for employees aggrieved by a violation of the statute. In addition to restraining orders on continuing violations or being required to reinstate employees unlawfully terminated under the Act, employers may also be liable for lost wages and benefits, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Posting Requirement
The Act requires employers to post a notice of employees' rights under the Act in a visible area reserved for employment-related notices as well as an area of the workplace "commonly frequented by employees."
Exceptions
The Act provides certain limited exceptions to the general ban on mandatory meetings or communications related to labor organizations. The Act does not prohibit:
- An employer from permitting employees to attend employer-sponsored meetings voluntarily or from providing other communications to employees, if the employer notifies the employees that they may refuse to attend the meetings or accept the communications without penalty;
- An employer from communicating information that they are required by law to communicate;
- An employer from requiring employes to attend meetings or participate in communications concerning information that is necessary for employees to perform their required job duties;
- An employer from requiring employees to attend trainings to reduce or prevent unlawful workplace harassment or discrimination;
- An institution of higher education from conducting mandatory meetings or participating in communications with its employees concerning coursework, symposia, research, publication, or academic programs at the respective institution;
- Where lawful, a candidate, candidate committee, joint candidates committee, political committee, continuing political committee, independent expenditure committee, political party committee or legislative leadership committee, lobbyist, or a not-for-profit organization from requiring its staff or employees to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or participate in any communication with the employer or the employer's agent, representative, or designee for the purpose of communicating political electioneering matters; or
- A religious organization from requiring its employees to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or participate in any communication with the employer or the employer's agent, representative, or designee for the purpose of communicating the employer's religious beliefs, practices, or tenets.
Next Steps
The Act is set to take effect on December 2, 2025. To ensure compliance, employers with operations in New Jersey should promptly take the following steps:
- Post signage informing employees of their rights under the new law; and
- Reassess and consider other measures for communicating with employees regarding labor organizing and/or union election campaigns.
Legal Challenges
New Jersey is one of 12 states with prohibitions on captive audience communications (see DWT's prior advisory on a similar law in New York). Although the NLRB, under the Biden Administration, ruled that employers violate the NLRB when they require employees to attend meetings or to engage in communications concerning the employer's view on unionization under threat of discipline, this has not stopped parties from challenging the validity of similar captive audience laws across the country. California's captive audience law, which went into effect after the NLRB's determination, is the subject of two separate lawsuits that contend the law violates employer free speech and is preempted by the NLRA. While a similar challenge to Minnesota's captive audience law was recently dismissed, given the recent challenges to the NLRB's authority, more legal challenges are expected.
[View source.]
