Amazon challenges NLRB rule blocking mandatory anti-union meetings

Amazon’s challenge to the National Labor Relations Board rule could matter far beyond its own warehouses if the 11th Circuit weakens the ban on mandatory anti-union meetings. The immediate question for workers at Big Lots is simple: can a manager require attendance at a meeting about unions, or can a worker refuse without risking discipline?

The NLRB answered that question in Amazon.com Services LLC on November 13, 2024, when it said employers violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act if they require employees, under threat of discipline or discharge, to sit through meetings where management pushes its views on unionization. The Board overruled Babcock & Wilcox Co., a 1948 precedent that had long been used to allow so-called captive-audience meetings. In the Board’s view, those meetings interfere with Section 7 rights because employees must be free to decide whether, when and how they listen to management’s anti-union message.

That rule is now under court pressure. On May 18, 2026, Amazon asked the 11th Circuit to overturn the NLRB’s decision, arguing that the agency overreached and broke with long-standing precedent. Court coverage in May also said judges questioned whether Amazon even had standing to challenge the rule, adding a procedural fight on top of the legal one. If Amazon succeeds, employers could get more room to make anti-union meetings mandatory again. If the NLRB rule holds, workers can continue to treat forced attendance at union-busting meetings as something the law limits, not something management can simply order.

For Big Lots workers, the stakes are not abstract. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on September 9, 2024, said it would sell its business to Nexus Capital Management for about $760 million, and later expanded its store-closing list to 344 locations across 41 states. In a business already hit by closures, leases going up for auction and constant uncertainty, the right to talk openly about pay, schedules, safety and job security becomes more important, not less.

That protection is still broad even when no union is on the scene. The NLRB says Section 7 protects self-organization and concerted activity for mutual aid or protection, including employees acting together on wages or safety. It also says a single employee can be protected when acting on behalf of co-workers, trying to start group action or bringing group complaints to management. Employers still cannot discharge, discipline, threaten or coercively question workers over that activity. For Big Lots employees, the real line to watch is whether management is sharing information or crossing into coercion, because that line could shape what happens in stores, distribution centers and offices if the Amazon case keeps moving in employers’ favor.