Judiciary Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: SB-163
AN ACT PROTECTING EMPLOYEE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
Title: CONSCIENCE.
Vote Date: 3/29/2022
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/4/2022
File No.:
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Raised by Judiciary Committee
Sen. Bob Duff, 25th Dist.
Sen. Gary A. Winfield, 10th Dist.
Rep. Gary A. Turco, 27th Dist.
Sen. Martin M. Looney, 11th Dist.
Rep. Kevin Ryan, 139th Dist.
Rep. Christine Palm, 36th Dist.
Rep. Kate Farrar, 20th Dist.
Rep. Jason Doucette, 13th Dist.
Rep. Christine Conley, 40th Dist.
Sen. Saud Anwar, 3rd Dist.
Sen. Julie Kushner, 24th Dist.
Sen. Marilyn V. Moore, 22nd Dist.
Rep. Travis Simms, 140th Dist.
Rep. Josh Elliott, 88th Dist.
Rep. Anne M. Hughes, 135th Dist.
Rep. Kenneth M Gucker, 138th Dist.
Rep. Michael A. Winkler, 56th Dist.
Rep. David Michel, 146th Dist.
Rep. Roland J. Lemar, 96th Dist.
Rep. Anthony L. Nolan, 39th Dist.
Rep. Joshua M. Hall, 7th Dist.
Sen. Will Haskell, 26th Dist.
Rep. Hilda E. Santiago, 84th Dist.
Rep. Juan R. Candelaria, 95th Dist.
Rep. Corey P. Paris, 145th Dist.
Rep. Robyn A. Porter, 94th Dist.
Rep. Peter A. Tercyak, 26th Dist.
Rep. Matt Blumenthal, 147th Dist.
Sen. Derek Slap, 5th Dist.
Rep. Brandon Chafee, 33rd Dist.
Rep. Geoff Luxenberg, 12th Dist.
Rep. Gregory Haddad, 54th Dist.
Rep. Bob Godfrey, 110th Dist.
Rep. Michael D'Agostino, 91st Dist.
Sen. Matthew L. Lesser, 9th Dist.
Rep. Hubert D. Delany, 144th Dist.
Rep. Frank Smith, 118th Dist.
Rep. Henry J. Genga, 10th Dist.
Rep. Bobby G. Gibson, 15th Dist.
REASONS FOR BILL:
If passed, SB163 would prohibit an employer from coercing any employee into attending or
participating in a meeting sponsored by the employer concerning the employer's views on political
or religious matters. Specifically, SB163 provides a cause of action for employees to recover
damages when an employer violates their freedom of conscience protected by the First
Amendment. This is primarily a response to consistent and widespread complaints by
Connecticut residents about employers enlisting the services of third-party consultants to launch
coercion campaigns against employees considering joining unions.
SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE:
Revises definition of "political matters", to include all "proposals" instead of only "proposals to
change".
Revises damages language by changing the phrase "costs of any [such] action for damages"
to " costs of any action for damages", thereby clarifying applicability
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Senator Martin Looney- President pro tempore of the Connecticut Senate
Senator Looney testified in support of SB163, asserting that the First Amendment protects
the right not to listen to coercive speech. Additionally, he addresses claims that the bill would
impede on standard functions of businesses, pointing out the exemptions for several specific
types of organizations such as religious, educational and political organizations. He also
argues that the National Labor Relations Act would in fact not preempt this type of legislation,
since it is well established that states may place conditions on entities that receive state
money in order to encourage compliance. Finally, he reminds the bill's critics that nowhere in
it's text does it limit what employers may say.
Attorney General, State of Connecticut William Tong
Attorney General William Tong submitted testimony in support of SB163. Mr. Tong explains
that SB163 is materially different from previous "captive audience" bills and would clarify the
scope of Sec. 31-51q of the Connecticut General Statutes, Liability of employer for discipline
or discharge of employee on account of employee's exercise of certain constitutional rights,
to specifically include "freedom of religion and freedom of association and shall include the
Page 2 of 11 SB-163
right to not be required to listen to speech. Mr. Tong emphasizes that SB163 protects an
employer's ability to compel attendance to work-related speech such as safety policies,
casual conversations and communications limited to managerial and supervisory employees,
for example. Additionally, Mr. Tong cites several supreme court cases which have historically
protected the state's right to regulate employers under similar circumstances and contexts, as
well as others which reject preemption claims.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
AFL-CIO Craig Becker, General Council
Mr. Becker testified in support of SB163. While Mr. Becker notes the obvious merits of
SB163, his testimony addresses the basis of two common objections to the bill, citing various
court decisions. Mr. Becker argues that neither the First Amendment nor federal labor law
stand as an obstacle to SB163. He explains that in his mind, SB163 is comfortably in
accordance with the First Amendment as it does not prohibit or limit the discussion of politics,
religion or any other subject per se. Rather, it prohibits disciplinary action, termination of
employment or the threat thereof based on whether an employee participates in a discussion
or meeting concerning matters of individual conscience or matters which do not pertain to
their job. Mr. Becker explains that the First Amendment does permit the government to
"prohibit offensive speech as intrusive or offensive when the captive audience cannot avoid
the objectionable speech". He argues that since no reasonable person would forfeit
employment to avoid objectionable speech, this ultimatum constitutes coercion, and the
government may intervene. Expression may also be regulated when it merges into conduct,
and by this similar token, captive audience meetings are not necessarily protected by the
First Amendment. Further, SB163 applies only to unwilling recipients of communication;
employers are free to communicate with consenting participants who do not expressly reject
the communication and in this way, the bill avoids disruption of appropriate and consensual
communication between employer and employee. Finally, Mr. Becker argues that SB163 is
not preempted by federal labor law, both because it falls under the State's authority to
establish minimum working conditions and because the State retains authority to regulate
activity touching on deeply rooted local concerns.
Senator George Cabrera
Senator Cabrera testified in support of SB163, repeating many of the points and anecdotes of
previous testimony. He provides contemporary examples of anti-union action in Connecticut
and emphasizes that the consequences for retaliatory discipline by employers are toothless
and do not serve as an effective deterrent.
AFL-CIO Shellye Davis, Executive Vice President
Ms. Davis testified in support of SB163. She explains that Unions help expand the middle
class, and that unionized workers use fewer safety net services, are more productive and
experience less turnover than non-union workers. Ms. Davis also points out that SB163 does
not limit an employer from discussing any matters and even allows for compulsory meetings if
the subject pertains to work duties.
Hebrew Home, West Hartford Johanna Alabi, CNA
Ms. Alabi testified in support of SB163 and offered her personal experience attempting to
form a union among the staff at the Hebrew Home. She recalls that several years ago, when
Page 3 of 11 SB-163
her employer got word that she and her collogues were considering unionizing, they brought
in counter-union consultants from Jackson Lewis who Ms. Alabi claims, harassed and
intimidated she and her collogues. She reports that in compulsory meetings, the consultants
(who she notes were all white males) used race-based rhetoric, publicly posted private and
personal information of targeted employees, and threatened termination of employment. She
recalls an instance where one employee physically assaulted another who was attempting to
sign a petition for unionization. Ms. Alabi feels that SB163 would allow employees the option
and autonomy to protect themselves from this manor of harassment and tend to their patents.
SEIU District 1199NE Rob Baril, President
Mr. Baril testified in support of SB163. He explains the importance of unions and a worker's
right to join should they so choose, and echoes many of the concerns and complaints of
others working in healthcare. Mr. Baril emphasizes the intrusive and racially divisive nature of
the methods used by private consultants such as Jackson Lewis, which aim to sew division
and antipathy along ethnic lines and ultimately disrupt cooperation between employees.
Finally, Mr. Baril highlights the fact that business owners tap into Medicare and Medicaid
funds to pay private consultants, transferring the financial burden of harassing their workers
to Connecticut taxpayers.
United Auto Workers, Region 9A Beverley Brakeman, Regional Director
Ms. Brakeman testified in support of SB163, ingeminating and corroborating the observations
and grievances mentioned in other testimony. Ms. Brakeman highlights the ways in which the
coercion tactics used by employers leverage the existing power imbalance to scare
employees away from joining or considering a union. She also emphasizes that SB163 would
not prohibit employers from holding a meeting, particularly on appropriate work-related
matters, it would simply establish a labor standard to protect employees, in the same way
that the State is able to set safety standards and minimum wages.
Stefan Julian, Certified Nursing Assistant Hebrew Home, West Hartford
Mr. Julian testified in support. She relayed her experience trying to form a union in opposition
to union-busting consultants hired by her employer. Employees were forced to attend captive
audience meetings and told if they did not attend, they would be fired or disciplined. She told
of employees being subjected to police intimidation and the lasting effect that the experience
had on her and her co-workers.
Amalgamated Transit Union Oswaldo Chin, President/Business Agent
Mr. Chin testified in support of SB163. In addition to repeating the points raised in previous
testimony, Mr. Chin identifies surveillance, intimidation and threats against an employee's
immigration status, as tactics regularly implemented by counter-union consultants on the
behalf of companies.
American Federation of Teachers John Brady, Executive Vice President
Mr. Brady testified in support of SB163, offering his personal experience with captive
audience meetings. He also argues that union-busting tactics undermine employees' ability to
tend to their work responsibilities which is especially hazardous in industries such as
healthcare where people's lives and health are on the line. Mr. Brady recalls a particular
instance which occurred while he was an employee of Backus Hospital. He claims that he
was cornered alone in a 10'x10' by two managers who blocked the door and proceeded to
accost and intimidate Mr. Brady. In addition to the lasting fear as a result of the encounter,
Page 4 of 11 SB-163
Mr. Brady also claims that practices such as these make it both difficult and intimidating to
advocate for their patients.
UAW Local 2121 - Denise Gladue, Financial Secretary Treasurer
Ms. Gladue testified in support of SB163. She described the challenges she faced forming
the first union to organize on a sovereign reservation and under Tribal Law. She identified
Captive Audience Meetings as a particular problem because they force employees to attend
informational meetings or risk discipline or termination. She urged the Committee to
approve SB163 prohibiting employers from disciplining or terminating employees who refuse
to attend meetings designed to intimidate, coerce, and misinform employees in the hope they
will choose not to unionize.
Connecticut Womens Education and Legal Fund Madeline Granato, Policy Director
Ms. Granato testified in support of S.B. 163, stating that it protects worker's constitutional
rights to freedom of speech and conscience by establishing a state labor standard that allows
employees to refuse to attend captive audience meetings or refuse to listen to speech
communicating the employers opinion concerning religious or political matters. She noted the
economic security and benefits which women, especially women of color gain from being
unionized. Connecticut employers frequently hire consultants who utilize captive audience
meetings and other hostile tactics to discourage unionization.
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 777 - Cameron Champlin
Mr. Champlin testified in support of SB163, explaining that it ensures an employer will not
intimidate or compel them to attend a meeting that isnt related to work duties. He asserts that
we live in a democracy and people should be able to enjoy the rights under the Constitution.
Mr. Champlin urges legislators to vote in favor of the bill.
Connecticut AFL-CIO - Ed Hawthorne, President
Mr. Hawthorne testified in support. He described the harassment and pressure tactics
employees had been subjected to in captive audience meetings and noted that the United
States Supreme Court has recognized that it is a form of coercion to make an unwilling
recipient listen to even good ideas. He gave many examples of coercive talking points, often
misleading and untrue, used in captive audience meetings to convince employees not to
unionize. He noted that almost without limits, employers can force workers to attend these
captive-audience meetings and impose a "no questions or comments" rule, discipline any
worker who speaks up during the meeting, or fire workers who do not attend or get up and
leave. He noted that employees also need protection from employers' forced political speech.
He stated that the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision expanded the
First Amendment rights of corporations, giving employers the ability to require employees to
attend meetings about politics and specific candidates. corporations can encourage
employees to make political contributions to candidates and they can distribute "voter guides"
to employees that make the employers political positions clear. He then gave several
examples of how corporations had used this power to tell employees that if they didnt vote
for a particular candidate, they could be out of a job.
United Food and Commercial Workers Local 371 - Keri Hoehne, Executive Vice
President
Ms. Hoehne testified in favor of the bill stating that union membership is only at 11.6% a fact
that she largely attributed to employers virtually unrestricted ability to intimidate, coerce, and
Page 5 of 11 SB-163
lie to their employees to get them to vote against joining a union. She gave many examples
of coercive captive audience meetings throughout CT. She stated that captive audience
meetings during union campaigns are the rule, not the exception. These meetings by their
nature create an environment of tension, anxiety, and worry, and since employers continue to
conduct them day after day and week after week leading up to an election, many workers
decide to vote no, just to end the stress.
Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, PC - Daniel Livingston
Mr. Livingston testified in support of SB163, including in his written testimony, a legal
memorandum refuting the claim that the bill, if passed, would be preempted by federal law.
He stated that his objective is to prevent employers from forcing workers on pain of discharge
to listen to political, religious, and social propaganda that has nothing to do with work. He
claimed that state law still deems working people to be the property of their employers during
the workday and that under current state law an employer can order the employee to listen to
almost anything, and if it's on work time, the employee can be fired if he or she refuses to
listen. He noted that this advantage was used not only to stop the formation of unions, but
also for any political, social, or religious purpose. He asserts that there is nothing in the bill
that conflicts with National Labor Relations Act.
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 - William M. Lynn, Business
Manager and Financial Secretary
Mr. Lynn testified in support of SB163. He feels that the passage of SB163 is good policy and
a declaration of commitment to fundamental democratic rights. He gave an example of a
recent effort to unionize at Materials Innovation and Recycling Authority. Union avoidance
consultants used captive audience meetings to stress and intimidate workers into voting
against unionization. He urged the passage of the bill so that Connecticut workers could have
the choice to support or not support unionization free from pressure tactics.
IBEW local 420 - Joseph Malcarne, Business Manager
Mr. Malcarne testified in support of SB163 arguing that the bill would prohibit employers from
disciplining or terminating employees who refuse to attend captive audience meetings where
workers often endure the employers use of threats, surveillance, and intimidation when
seeking to form a union. He testified about his recent experience trying to unionize workers at
Aquarion Water, and how an anti-union consultant from Kentucky used captive audience
meetings to shut the effort down. He urged the passage of the bill to establish a state labor
standard prohibiting employers from disciplining or terminating employees who refuse to
attend employer-sponsored meetings.
AFSCME Council 4 in New Britain - Kelly Martinez, Director of Organizing
Ms. Martinez testified in favor stating that it would protect Connecticut worker's freedom of
speech by putting an end to captive audience meetings where workers often feel attacked for
wanting to organize into the union.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) - Daniel McInerney
Mr. McInerney testified in support or SB163 stating that employers should not be allowed to
subject thei