President Obama Seeks to Expand NLRB Budget, While House Committee Moves to Halt Board Action

Yesterday, President Obama announced his proposed budget which included increased funding for the National Labor Relations Board's FY 2014 operations. At the same time, the House of Representatives pushed forward with legislation intended to rein in the Board in the wake of the DC Circuit’s Noel Canning decision.

In his FY 2014 budget, President Obama proposed increasing the NLRB’s budget by approximately $5 million, or 1.8 percent, over the budget authorized for FY 2013.  If passed, the NLRB’s budget would increase to approximately $285 million in FY 2014.

The majority of the budget increase is intended to cover growth in compensation and benefits costs projected to be about $4 million.  A large portion of that increase is likely due to the President’s proposed one percent increase in federal employees’ salaries.  But it also reflects an increase from 1640 full-time equivalent employees in FY 2012 to 1680 in FY 2014.  The remainder of the NLRB’s proposed budget would cover increases in costs related to equipment, supplies, materials, and other overhead items.

Another projection of note in the budget estimates that 21,700 unfair labor practice charges and 2,700 representation petitions will be filed with the Board in FY 21014.  These numbers reflect an anticipation that filings will increase slightly from FY 2012 (the most recently completed fiscal year).  In FY 2012, there were 21,629 unfair labor practice charges and 2,484 representation petitions filed.  Interestingly, the filing in FY 2012 were down noticeably from FY 2011 during which 22,175 unfair labor practice charges and 2,634 representation petitions filed.  Perhaps not surprisingly, the budget does not project this downward trend to continue.

While the President seeks an expansion of the Board's operating budget, the House Rules Committee voted 7 to 3 yesterday to advance the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act, H.R. 1120, one step closer to a floor vote.  This bill was introduced in the House in response to the DC Circuit’s decision in Noel Canning, which found that the Board lacked a necessary quorum of members because recess appointments by President Obama were invalid.  If passed, the Act would prohibit the NLRB from taking any action requiring a quorum until one of three events occurs: 1) the Senate confirms enough members to constitute a quorum, 2) the NLRB rules on the constitutionality of President Obama’s mid-session recess appointments, or 2) the 113th Congress adjourns thus ending the terms of the Board members whose appointments are in question.
 

Proponents of the legislation point to the fact that, due to the Noel Canning ruling, approximately 600 decisions issued by the Board are potentially invalid as will be any decisions issued by the current Board going forward.  The bill purports to attempt to limit the confusion and uncertainty that has resulted from the Noel Canning decision.

Earlier this week, President Obama announced the renomination of Board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce and nomination of two Republican Members to the Board. Thus, the tug of war between the branches continues...
 

Labor Relations Today Releases 'Labor Law 2012: A Year in Review'

It was going to be hard to top 2011 in terms of unique and dynamic labor law developments. But 2012 may just have lived up to the task.

Seeking to ensure that the Board would have a quorum to operate during the year, on January 4, 2012, President Obama attempted the "recess" appointment of three members.  Despite the controversy swirling about these appointments, the Board continued apace to expand the rights of employees and unions under the National Labor Relations Act.  Among the more notable results were the invalidation of class waivers and mandatory arbitration agreements; the further diminution of the facility-wide presumption in organizing cases; and a number of decisions tilting the balance in collective-bargaining negotiations.  At the same time, the Acting General Counsel continued to pursue an expansive agenda -- issuing numerous new complaints and explanatory memoranda in social media cases.

The courts, however, dealt the Board a series of blows throughout the year, dismissing the Board's challenge to Arizona's secret ballot amendment; and invalidating the Board's rule-making on required notice-posting and "quickie elections".  But no court action carried as much import as the January 2013 Noel Canning decision by the Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. which declared the President's "recess" appointments unconstitutional, and found that the Board lacked a quorum to act throughout 2012.

The labor attorneys here at Labor Relations Today have been following these significant developments every step of the way. Today we are publishing "Labor Law in 2012: A Year in Review." This brief summary highlights some of the most noteworthy developments in 2012. We hope you find it a helpful resource as we head into what is certain to be one of the most interesting years in labor law in some time.

White House, Congressional Republicans and AFL-CIO React to Noel Canning Decision

Comment and reaction abound following yesterday's ruling in Noel Canning, invalidating the President's efforts to appoint three members to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012.

The President's press secretary Jay Carney criticized the ruling, echoed the NLRB's Chairman's vow to press on with the business of the Board, and sought to isolate the decision's impact:

(h/t @Politico)

Not surprisingly, Congressional Republicans, on the other hand, who had filed amicus briefs in the case, praised the ruling.  Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement asserting:

The D.C. Circuit Court today reaffirmed that the Constitution is not an inconvenience but the law of the land, agreeing with the owners of a family-owned business who brought the case to the Court...

House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), and House Education & the Workforce Committee Chair Rep. John Kline (R-MN) and Committee Member Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) joined in expressing approval.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka reiterated much of the White House's critique, adding:

We strongly disagree with the court’s reasoning and decision.  We fully expect this radical decision to be reversed, and that other courts addressing this issue will uphold the President’s recess appointment authority.  In the meantime, the appointees to the National Labor Relations Board remain in their jobs and the NLRB remains open for business. 

The rights protected by this agency are too important for the agency to have to operate under a legal cloud.  We urge the Senate to promptly confirm a package of nominees to the NLRB.

More commentary and coverage:

Next Week, U.S. Senate Will Debate Resolution to Block National Labor Relations Board's "Quickie" Election Rule

Earlier this week, one new National Labor Relations Board rule was put on indefinite hold.  Now Senate Republicans are taking aim at another Board initiative set to go into effect on April 30, 2012 -- the rule designed to expedite union representation elections.  Earlier today, Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), Ranking Member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee announced that next week the Senate will debate the the resolution of disapproval condemning the Board's rule.

The measure, S.J. Res 36, was introduced earlier this year by Sen. Enzi and forty-four other Senators under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).  Its target is the rule, announced by the Board just before expiration of former Member Craig Becker's term in December of 2011, which would shorten the time between the filing of an NLRB petition and the conduct of a union representation election.  Sen. Enzi announced that the resolution has been placed on the Senate legislative calendar and that debate on the resolution is expected on Monday and Tuesday of next week.  Of the Board's rule, Sen. Enzi said:

This rule was rushed into place by an agency that is bound and determined to stack the odds against American employers. ... Despite the fact that unemployment has remained above 8 percent for the past three years, and with small business growth being the most important factor in reversing the lackluster economy, the NLRB has chosen to impose new rules to aid big labor at the expense of employees, small business employers and the jobs they would create.

The CRA resolution is not the only measure aimed at blocking implementation of the Board's rule.  Months ago, Rep. John Kline's (R-MN) "Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act" (H.R. 3094) passed the House by a vote of 235-188.  The bill would guarantee that no representation election is held within 35 days after the filing of a petition, provide for a two-week waiting period before a hearing could be held, and ensure certain preliminary appeal rights eliminated by the Board rule.  There is also litigation pending and both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Board have filed dueling summary judgment motions which should be decided fairly soon.

 

Employers must stay tuned to developments.  Absent successful challenge by any one of these various approaches, the Board's new rule will go into effect April 30, 2012. 

 

Forty-Four Senators Introduce Resolution to Halt National Labor Relations Board Implementation of "Quickie" Election Rule

Forty-four senators including Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Ranking Member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, today introduced a Resolution of Disapproval (S.J. Res 36) challenging the National Labor Relations Board's new rules expediting union representation elections. Passage of the Resolution, submitted under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), would allow Congress to stop implementation of the rule.

The Resolution reads, simply:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to representation election procedures (published at 76 Fed. Reg. 80138 (December 22, 2011)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Senator Enzi had promised to file this Resolution following the Board's December announcement of the Final Rule.  Today, he said:

“This rule will make a fair system less fair for one side, and is being rushed into effect over tremendous objections. This is why I am joining with my fellow senators to stop this rule from going into effect and ambushing the small business job creators we need for our economic recovery.”

Expect a similar Resolution to be introduced in the House, where if put to a vote, it should pass with the Republican majority handily.  More interestingly, a CRA resolution of disapproval cannot be filibustered.  As it needs only a simple majority in the Senate to pass if acted upon during a 60-day window, it may come within a few votes -- as the current 53-47 breakdown between the caucuses.  This may be expected to put some pressure on moderate Democrats facing re-election this year in more conservative districts.  In any event, the Resolution would still be subject to certain veto by the President. 

Both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Board have also recently filed dueling summary judgment motions in the Chamber's litigation to reverse the rule.

President Obama Re-Nominates Three Members Previously "Recess" Appointed to NLRB

Yesterday, President Obama  sent to the Senate the nominations of the three National Labor Relations Board Members which he previously appointed to the Board during a pro forma session of Congress last month.  The nominations read:

Sharon Block, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board for the term of five years expiring December 16, 2014, vice Craig Becker, to which position she was appointed during last recess of the Senate.

Terence Francis Flynn, of Maryland, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board for the term of five years expiring August 27, 2015, vice Peter Schaumber, term expired, to which position he was appointed during the last recess of the Senate.

Richard F. Griffin, Jr., of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board for the term of five years expiring August 27, 2016, vice Wilma B. Liebman, term expired, to which position he was appointed during the last recess of the Senate.

These three Members were sworn in earlier in the year following the President's controversial efforts to recess appoint them to the positions.  That decision is the subject of considerable current, and likely additional future,litigation.  Moreover, two House Committees have recently held hearings exploring the appointments, with a third set for 10:00 a.m. tomorrow before the Committee on the Judiciary. 

Expect these re-submitted nominations to go nowhere fast.  A broader Democratic majority in the 111th Congress was unable to advance the President's 2010 nominations to the Board -- with two Democratic Senators voting against cloture.  The controversial tenure of previous recess appointees and the very active 2011 that resulted at the Board, coupled with the current election year partisan gridlock in D.C., all but guarantees that nothing more will be done with these nominations at least until after resolution of the pending litigation.

The partisan wrangling over empty Board seats and the threat of recess appointments by both parties has been problematic for years.  There is little hope on the horizon that it will be resolved anytime soon.  Our reliance on the value of precedent in labor law, and stability in labor relations will continue to suffer as a result. 

In the meantime, the full complement of Board Members will continue to serve, and one might expect the Democratic majority to continue to issue the same variety of bold pronouncements, decisions, reversals and rule-making as during 2011.

House Education and the Workforce Committee Holds Hearing Questioning NLRB "Recess" Appointments

The House Education and the Workforce Committee held a hearing on President Obama's January 4, 2012 "recess" appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing is the second of three scheduled on this issue -- as the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing last week, and the Judiciary Committee will hold one next.










Get Microsoft Silverlight


 

Chairman John Kline (R-MN) opened the hearing asserting that the President's actions created a "constitutional crisis" as the Senate was in pro forma session at the time:

Thanks to the president’s action, three scarcely known individuals are now empowered to dramatically transform our nation’s workforce. The highly controversial nature of the appointments guarantees the rules and decisions the new board members adopt will be constitutionally suspect and legally challenged. Even the president’s own Justice Department, in what I would characterize as an understatement of the gravity of the situation, noted the issues surrounding these appointments “create some litigation risk.”
Make no mistake, every action taken by the board will be tainted, creating greater uncertainty for employers and additional costs for taxpayers.


House Democrats argued the recess appointments were necessary to overcome obstruction and to keep the government functioning. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the committee’s ranking Democrat, declared the proceeding wasteful: "Today is just another legislative day dedicated to divisive issues."
Per the Wall Street Journal's Melanie Trottman:

Mr. Miller said it will likely be the Supreme Court, not Congress, that decides whether the recess appointments violated the Constitution, and the committee should be focusing its efforts on other issues such as job creation instead of having its sixth hearing “attacking” the NLRB.


Whether or not the three appointments are legitimate is a fundamental issue with fairly pressing consequences. If they are not, under the Supreme Court's 2010 New Process Steel decision, the Board lacks a requisite quorum for official action. The Board would be precluded from issuing Orders in cases before it, or from further rule-making activity. Near the top of the Board's list of priorities is to implement the rest of its proposed rules to expedite union representation elections. Several organizations have filed suit challenging the President's appointments, but Board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce has indicated unequivocally that the Board will proceed to consider all remaining elements of the changes proposed last June. Chairman Pearce recently told the Associated Press:

“We presume the constitutionality of the president’s appointments and we go forward based on that understanding.”

 

Three Congressional Hearings on Tap For President's "Recess" Appointments to NLRB

If you have not been following the response to President Obama's January 4, 2012 appointment of three Members to the National Labor Relations Board (along with Richard Cordray's appointment as CFPB Director), you'll have plenty of opportunity soon. 

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) will hold a hearing on Wednesday morning entitled, "Uncharted Territory: What are the Consequences of President Obama's Unprecedented 'Recess' Appointments?"  The hearing will commence at 9:30am in room 2154 Rayburn House Office Building, and will be streamed live on the Committee's website.
 
But that will be just the first of three hearings held during the coming weeks.  House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) has announced that his Committee will hold a broader-themed hearing on February 7, 2012, entitled “The NLRB Recess Appointments: Implications for America’s Workers and Employers.”  According to the Committee's announcement, this hearing held, to be held at 10:00 a.m. in 2175 Rayburn House Office Building:

will provide an opportunity to examine the ongoing issues before the board, as well as the affect additional pro-union decisions could have on the competitiveness of the American workforce.

Finally, The Hill reports that the House Judiciary Committee will probe the appointments via hearing as well:

Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) announced Monday that his committee will hold a hearing on Feb. 15 to explore the constitutionality of the president's move, which he said sets a "dangerous precedent" for future administrations.

 

Congress Announces Deal on FAA Re-Authorization, NMB Election Rule Stands With One Adjustment

National Journal reports that House and Senate leaders have announced an agreement on the long-awaited reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  The deal includes Republicans backing down on their effort to reverse the May 2010 rule issued by the National Mediation Board (NMB) which changed the 75 year-old method for counting votes in union representation elections under the Railway Labor Act (RLA):

Republican leaders agreed to remove the offending language in the FAA bill that would have rescinded a National Mediation Board rule set under the Obama administration that makes it easier for rail and aviation workers to unionize. The remaining disputes between Republicans and Democrats on the measure have been worked out in a gentlemen's agreement among congressional transportation gurus.

In exchange for Republicans dropping the NMB rule recission, Democrats have agreed to include a provision that would raise the threshold for rail and aviation workers expressing interest in forming a union from 35 percent to 50 percent. This would mark the first time that an FAA reauthorization included any NMB changes, which is likely to make organized labor uncomfortable. But it also appeases Republicans who were angered by the original Obama administration rule that nonvoting aviation and rail workers do not count as "no" votes in unionization elections.

Lawmakers also have agreed to public hearings for all substantial NMB rule-making and tweaks to the manner in which runoff elections will be held. (The procedural change will make it easier for a "no union" option to win.) The deal also includes several oversight reports from the Government Accountability Office.

Our previous coverage of the issue:

 

NLRB Announces Final Rule to Expedite Elections; Senator Announces Effort to Block Rule Via Congressional Resolution

The National Labor Relations Board announced today that it has adopted a final rule amending its election case procedures to shorten the time between the filing of a petition and the conduct of an election. The rule will be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, December 22, and is due to take effect on April 30, 2012.

The Board asserts that under the new rule:

...regional hearings will be expressly limited to issues relevant to the question of whether an election should be conducted. The hearing officer will have the authority to limit testimony to relevant issues, and to decide whether or not to accept post-hearing briefs.

Also, all appeals of regional director decisions to the Board will be consolidated into a single post-election request for review. Parties can currently appeal regional director decisions to the Board at multiple stages in the process.

In addition, the rule makes all Board review of Regional Directors’ decisions discretionary, leaving more final decisions in the hands of career civil servants with long experience supervising elections.

There have been various attempts by lawmakers to undo this rule, including John Kline's (R-MN) "Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act" (H.R. 3094) which passed by a vote of 235-188 late last month.  That bill would guarantee that no representation election is held within 35 days after the filing of a petition, provide for a two-week waiting period before a hearing could be held, and ensure certain preliminary appeal rights. 

But it is not just the substance of the changes that opponents question.  Days before the NLRB held a unique "public" session to vote upon the proposed rule changes, Member Brian Hayes sent a highly critical letter to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.  Member Hayes accused the Board majority of intentionally:

breach[ing] the Board’s internal operating rule and, for the first time in the history of this agency, not allow[ing] the requisite time for preparing or circulating a dissent. 

This afternoon, hours after the Board announcement of the final rule, Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Ranking Member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, asserted that he would challenge the Board's actions:  

The rule issued today by the NLRB will allow union bosses to ambush employers with union elections before employers have a fair chance to learn their rights and explain their views to employees, as required by law.  I plan to lead the fight against this onerous rule by introducing a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) allows Congress to review every new federal regulation issued by the government agencies and, by passage of a joint resolution, overrule a regulation.  According to Senator Enzi's office, a resolution of disapproval introduced under the CRA cannot be filibustered and needs only a simple majority in the Senate to pass if acted upon during a 60-day window.

Department of Interior at Odds With National Labor Relations Board Over NLRA Application to Indian Tribes

Earlier this month, Patrice Kunesh the Department of Interior's Deputy Solicitor for Indian Affairs sent a letter to National Labor Relations Board Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon, urging the Board to exempt Indian tribes from coverage by the National Labor Relations Act.

Until 2004, the NLRB's position regarding jurisdiction over Indian tribes as employers was that tribes were exempt from the NLRA.  That year, however, the Board shifted course entirely, asserting jurisdiction over the San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino -- a tribal casino owned and operated by the San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians on tribal land in California.  The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed

Deputy Solicitor Kunesh writes:

…I seek an opportunity to advance the Department’s position on the applicability of the NLRA to Indian tribes, articulated by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, that Indian nations acting within their jurisdictions are exempt from the NLRA. See Dobbs v. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 600 F.3d 1275, 1284-84 (10th Cir. 2010); NLRB v. Pueblo of San Juan, 276 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2002). As stated by the Tenth Circuit: “[R]espect for Indian sovereignty means that federal regulatory schemes do not apply to tribal governments exercising their sovereign authority absent express congressional authorization. Dobbs, 600 F.3d at 1283.

Rather than advancing this position in a litigation context, I believe that there may be an opportunity to work together to address whether Congress intended the NLRA to apply to tribal government employers. It is undoubtedly within the NLRB’s power to consider whether its original interpretation of the government employer exemption, 29 U.S.C. §152(2), as implicitly exempting tribal governments acting within their territorial jurisdictions, correctly interpreted congressional intent, as Member Schaumber argued in his dissent in San Manuel.

This reaffirmation of Interior's view, and a request to resolve the issue with its fellow Executive agency outside of a "litigation context," comes as Rep. Kristi Noem's (R-SD) bill, "To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian tribes on Indian lands under the National Labor Relations Act," (H.R. 2335), sits in Committee.  Rep. Noem's bill, which has eighteen co-sponsors including Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK), would  clarify that the National Labor Relations Board does not have jurisdiction over tribally owned businesses on reservation land as a matter tribal sovereignty.  Over the summer, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma issued a preliminary injunction in The Chickasaw Nation v. National Labor Relations Board, Case No. CIV-11-506-W, enjoining the National Labor Relations Board from proceeding with an unfair labor practice hearing against the Chickasaw Nation, a federally-recognized Indian Tribe.

 

It would certainly seem that a larger consensus is gathering among administrative agencies, federal courts and at least some lawmakers with which the Board's current interpretation (San Manuel) is at odds.

 

More commentary and resources:

President Plans to Nominate Two Democrats to the NLRB

President Obama announced yesterday plans to nominate two Democrats to the National Labor Relations Board. The planned nominees are Sharon Block, deputy assistant secretary for congressional affairs at the Department of Labor, and Richard Griffin, who is currently general counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers. According to news sources, both have backgrounds in Democratic policy making.

Currently, there are only three out of five members of the NLRB. However, at the end of the year, Craig Becker's recess appointment expires leaving the Board with just two members: Chairman Mark Pearce and Brian Hayes. With only two members, the Board will lack authority to issue any decisions or rules.

Once nominated, Ms. Block and Mr. Griffin will have to be confirmed by the Senate. However, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has vowed to block President Obama from making any further appointments to the Board. Moreover, the House Republicans have been taking steps in recent months to prevent the Senate from going into a full recess, thus precluding the President from making any recess appointments. Most expect the House Republicans to continue this practice.

NLRB Approves Changes to Union Election Rules, 2 to 1

On Wednesday, the NLRB voted 2-to-1 to approve a resolution to amend the rules and regulations related to its election process. Chairman Mark Pearce and Member Craig Becker voted in favor of the changes and Member Brian Hayes voted against them. The amendments that passed were trimmed from a more comprehensive set of proposed changes published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2011. The approved changes are intended to reduce litigation in election cases and will also significantly shorten the time between any pre-election hearing and the election date.

The approved changes will include:

a) giving hearing officers greater discretion to limit the evidence presented at pre-election hearings to evidence that is “relevant to a genuine issue of fact material to whether a question of representation exists”

b) giving hearing officers the discretion to deny requests by parties to submit post-hearing briefs

c) denying the parties the right to file requests for review with the Board challenging the viability of a regional director’s decision and direction of election until after the election

d) eliminating the 25 day period between the issuance of a decision and direction of election by a regional director and the holding of an election

e) clarifying the rules regarding a party’s ability to seek special permission to appeal a hearing officer ruling to the Board

f) giving the Board the discretion to refuse to review a regional director’s resolution of post-election disputes

The Board did not release the final rules that will amend or replace the existing language in the regulations. It also did not indicate when the new rules would become effective. Unless the language is already written and the date is already set, it is reasonable to believe both will be impacted when Member Becker’s recess appointment expires at the end of this month, leaving just two members on the Board.

 

At roughly the same time as the Board action, Congress passed a bill designed to undo parts of the proposed rule changes.  John Kline's (R-MN) "Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act" (H.R. 3094) passed by a vote of 235-188.  The bill would guarantee that no representation election is held within 35 days after the filing of a petition, provide for a two-week waiting period before a hearing could be held, and ensure certain preliminary appeal rights.

NLRB Member Hayes: Board Plans to Ignore its Rules to Push Through "Quickie Elections"

When we reported yesterday that the National Labor Relations Board announced it had scheduled a November 30th vote regarding "a small number" of the changes to its election procedures that the Board proposed back in June, we speculated that current Board dynamics might prevent the Board from adopting a wide range of the controversial measures included in the proposed rule.  Not so fast, it would seem...

In a letter sent yesterday by lone Republican Board Member Brian Hayes to Chairman John Kline (R-MN) of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Hayes expressed his serious concerns and more disconcerting circumstances than might have been anticipated:

My colleagues are committed to issuing a final R Case Rule before Member Becker’s recess appointment expires at the end of the current Congressional session.    I was further advised that in the event I did not agree with the final R Case Rule, it would, nonetheless, be approved and published based on their two-member vote.  Moreover, if, as will necessarily be the case, I am not afforded the requisite opportunity to review and draft a dissent to the rule, I was advised that I would be limited to doing so after publication of the rule.  … [T]hese actions would contravene long-standing Board tradition and the Board’s own operating rules.   These rules and traditions have been established to protect the legitimacy of the Board.  They cannot, in my view, simply be case aside in pursuit of a singular policy agenda without doing irreparable harm to the Board’s legitimacy.

This reported approach resembles that taken by the National Mediation Board, when in early 2010, following the appointment of a former union president to the Board, the agency excluded dissenting voices from the process of revising a decades-old election rule.  That change too was designed to facilitate private sector union organizing.  Member Hayes adds the troubling suggestion that his colleagues at the NLRB might not be simply considering this approach for the passage of this Proposed Rule, but for a variety of other pending Board matters as well:

…since Member Becker’s recess appointment will expire in less than 90 days, it is quite clear that the two Board members nevertheless intend to breach the Board’s internal operating rule and, for the first time in the history of this agency, not allow the requisite time for preparing or circulating a dissent.  Indeed, as noted above, I have been specifically advised of this fact both with respect to publication or a final rule and with respect to a number of significant cases currently pending before the Board.

Finally, his reference to  the "Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act" (H.R. 3094) in his letter's conclusion, suggests that the two-Member bloc may intend to pass some of the more radical changes included in the Proposed Rule after all:

...I note that my colleagues’ rush to final rulemaking judgment is taken in the face of active consideration of H.R. 3094, provisions of which are in direct conflict with the Board’s proposed Rule.  Although I make no comment concerning the merits of this legislative proposal, I believe its pendency provides yet another reason why my two colleagues should suspend their rulemaking efforts.

Circulation of this letter is certain to revive some of the calls for Member Hayes to step down in advance of the November 30th vote in order to deny the Board a quorum to act.  The legal reasoning laid out by Member Hayes in opposition to the Board's current course might suggest he thinks such drastic measures are unnecessary to prevent promulgation of this rule.  But this should make for an interesting next ten days at the NLRB.

More commentary and resources:

House Committee Seeks to Stop NLRB from Implementing New Election Rules

In response to the National Labor Relations Board's proposed changes to the rules governing representation elections, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce voted to send Committee Chairman John Kline's (R-MN) "Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act" (H.R. 3094) bill to the floor earlier this week.

The bill would guarantee that no representation election is held within 35 days after the filing of a petition and provide for a two-week waiting period before the hearing could be held. In addition, the bill also seeks to undo the NLRB's recent decision in Specialty Healthcare, 357 NLRB No. 83 (Aug. 26, 2011), where the Board overruled 20 years of practice regarding how it determines the "appropriate unit" for the election.

When the NLRB announced its intent to change election procedures earlier this year, it claimed that "[t]he proposed amendments are intended to reduce unnecessary litigation, streamline pre- and post-election procedures, and facilitate the use of electronic communications and document filing." However, the proposed amendments to the NLRB's Rules and Regulations will also have a drastic effect on an employer's ability to respond to organizing campaigns and for employees to become educated about the advantages and disadvantages of union representation and collective bargaining.

The House bill follows on the heels of the Senate's “The Fair Representation in Elections Act of 2011” (S. 1425), which similarly requires that no election is held within 40 days after the filing of a petition.

Graham NLRB Amendment to Appropriations Bill Fails 15-15 Committee Vote

On September 15, 2011, the House of Representatives passed The Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act (H.R. 2587) which would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer a business. The Democratic majority in the Senate caused many to reasonably ask whether the House action mattered, as the bill has little chance of success in being passed in that chamber. 

But in this political season, nothing can be taken for granted.  On September 20, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) introduced the bill as an amendment  to S. 1599, the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill for FY 2012.  Hitched to that broader legislation, the issue's prospects found themselves dependent first on the action of the Appropriations Committee, and its 16-14 Democratic majority. 

Yesterday, Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) joined the fourteen Republican Senators on the Committee in voting for the amendment -- but the opposition of the other fifteen Democrats resulted in the measure's failure. 

As noted above, and elsewhere, the Democrats still hold a majority in the Senate -- even with some conservative caucus members willing to depart the party-line.  That reality and President Obama's veto pen pose significant obstacles to enactment of Republican-backed House labor law bills.  But the unique circumstances surrounding the Board -- soon to be unable to act without a quorum of members, absent further Senate action -- during the highly charged political season already upon us may well continue to cause curious and unconventional legislative and administrative maneuvering to accomplish various ends.

Stay tuned...

More information and resources:

House of Representatives Passes Bill to Limit NLRB's Remedial Authority

The House of Representatives today passed The Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act (H.R. 2587) which would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer a business. The bill, introduced by Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), on July 19, 2011 passed the House by a vote of 238-186.

The bill is aimed, in part, at stopping the NLRB from proceeding with its complaint against the Boeing Co. with respect to the opening of its new South Carolina facility.  By its terms, if it passes, the Act would apply to "any complaint for which a final adjudication has not been made by the date of enactment."  Rep. Scott was quoted in the Examiner:

“Today’s vote is important for our entire nation, as well as for my home district in South Carolina, where the NLRB is currently pursuing an agenda which, if successful, would kill thousands of jobs.... By removing the NLRB’s ability to dictate where private industry creates jobs, we are preventing an unelected, presidentially appointed government board from pitting state against state, inserting themselves into the business decisions of private companies, and scaring away investment in our nation.”

The bill passed largely along party lines -- as it did previously in Committee -- so it is little shock that House Democrats were quick to denounce the bill in strenuous terms.  The Education and the Workforce Committee Democrats posted on their website YouTube clips of Reps. George Miller (D-CA) and Robert Andrews (D-NJ) speaking critically of the bill on the House floor.

A related bill (S. 1523), introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is pending in the Senate.  

The Boeing case is currently proceeding before an NLRB administrative law judge in Seattle.

FAA Furlough Likely to Continue for Weeks; Parties in Congress Differ on Impact of NMB Union Election Rule

Congress has adjourned for up to five weeks without passing a bill to extend funding for the Federal Aviation Administration, resulting in "unprecedented" furloughs due to a partial shutdown of agency operations.  Approximately 4,000 FAA employees are out of work following the July 22 failure of Congress to pass at least a temporary extension of funding for the agency. The furlough impacts engineering and electronics technicians, computer and logistics specialists, and support staff, among other workers.

At the center of the dispute is the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part IV (H.R. 2553) which was passed by the House on July 20, 2011 by a mostly party-line vote, 243-177.  The heart of the bill, introduced by Rep. John Mica (R-FL), is a fairly standard extension of funding for the FAA, the likes of which has been passed numerous times before throughout recent history.  This latest version, however, which was rebuffed by the Senate prior to the adjournment, contains a provision seeking to significantly limit the agency's Essential Air Service Program.  House Republicans view the EAS as a costly pork-barrel program.

Some Senators, however, argue that the GOP insistence on these cuts in the short-term funding bill is retribution for the Democrats' objection to earlier versions of the bill which included Republican efforts to reverse the National Mediation Board's new rules facilitating union organizing for airline employees.  Regular readers of this blog know that last May, the NMB announced that it was changing a decades-old rule regarding the way votes are counted in union representation elections under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).  On May 17, 2010, an association of airlines filed suit to block the rule, but that challenge failed and the rule became effective as of July 1, 2010. 

In February 2011, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) introduced legislation to reverse the rule change -- the "Restoring Democracy in the Workplace Act" (H.R. 548).  The bill went nowhere beyond committee.  Soon thereafter, Rep. Mica introduced a long-term funding extension bill for the FAA (H.R. 658) -- Section 903 provided for repeal of the new NMB rule.  The bill passed the House, but stalled in the Senate -- leading to passage of a series of short-term extensions, until now.

Rep. Mica has issued a statement suggesting that the NMB issue is a red-herring in the present debate:

FACT: Senate Democrats are also arguing that the House-passed extension is about a labor provision, but the fact is there is no labor provision in the extension.

Whether the Congress reconvenes ahead of schedule to resolve their differences and fund the FAA remains to be seen -- as will the extent to which, if any, the disputed NMB rule ultimately plays a part.

House Committee Passes Bill to Limit NLRB Remedial Authority

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce passed a bill yesterday that would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer a business. The Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act (H.R. 2587), introduced by Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), is aimed, in part, at stopping the NLRB from proceeding with its complaint against the Boeing Co.  According to the WSJ's Melanie Trottman:

The bill passed the House Education and the Workforce Committee on a 23-16 party-line vote, But it’s unclear when the full House might consider it, and it’s not likely to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Republicans say the NLRB, an independent government agency that’s controlled by Obama administration appointees, has gone too far and needs to be stopped with legislation.

“Republicans refuse to allow federal bureaucrats to reverse the business decisions of employers,” Committee Chairman John Kline (R., Minn.) said at the committee meeting Thursday. The bill, he said, “takes a critical step to provide employers with the certainty they need to put Americans back to work, right here at home.”

Committee Ranking Member Rep. George Miller denounced the effort in a statement, calling it "a very reckless and partisan bill to destroy workers' rights."

More information and commentary:

 

District Court Enjoins NLRB from Proceeding with ULP Hearing Against Indian Tribe

On Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma issued a preliminary injunction in The Chickasaw Nation v. National Labor Relations Board, Case No. CIV-11-506-W, enjoining the National Labor Relations Board from proceeding with an unfair labor practice hearing against the Chickasaw Nation, a federally-recognized Indian Tribe. Relying on "a deep body of Tenth Circuit law expressing extreme deference to tribal sovereignty," the district court found that it had jurisdiction to enjoin the NLRB from proceeding with its hearing and that the Chickasaw Nation "is substantially likely to prevail on the merits of its claim for a declaratory judgment that it is not subject to the provisions of the NLRA."

The Chickasaw Nation holds a series of treaties with the United States and is governed by its citizen-elected government in accordance with the Chickasaw Nation Constitution. Through the Chickasaw Nation Division of Commerce, it operates gaming facilities on tribal trust property. Revenues generated by the Nation's Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) gaming are used exclusively by the Nation to fund Tribal government operations or programs, or to provide for the general welfare of the Nation and its citizens, consistent with the requirements of IGRA. These functions and purposes include but are not limited to healthcare, education, law enforcement, youth and family services.

In granting the Chickasaw Nation's motion, the district court noted:

Because of the extraordinary number of tribes located within its jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit is uniquely experienced in the application of the canons of Indian law. The Tenth Circuit has clearly held that "federal regulatory schemes do not apply to tribal governments exercising their sovereign authority absent express congressional authorization." ... Such Tenth Circuit authority is in accord with the United States Supreme Court's holding that before a treaty right will be abrogated, there must be a "clear and plain" expression of Congress' intent to do so.

It is undisputed that the National Labor Relations Act makes no explicit reference to Indian tribes.

The district court acknowledged the District of Columbia Circuit's decision in San Manuel Indian Bingo & Casino, 475 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2007).  In that case, the D.C. Circuit ruled that the NLRB does have jurisdiction over tribally owned businesses based upon a statement of questionable significance from a 1960 Supreme Court case that "a general statute in terms applying to all persons includes Indians and their property interests." Noting that the Tenth Circuit "firmly disavowed" the reasoning employed in San Manuel because the 1960 Supreme Court decision involved proprietary interests rather than sovereign interests, the district court found that it had jurisdiction to temporarily enjoin the NLRB from proceeding with its hearing against the Chickasaw Nation.

The district court's order comes on the heels of Rep. Kristi Noem's (R-SD) bill introduced on June 23, 2011, that seeks to clarify that the NLRB does not have jurisdiction over tribally owned businesses on reservation land as a matter tribal sovereignty. Prior to 2004, the NLRB's position regarding jurisdiction over Indian tribes as employers was that tribes were exempt from the NLRA, but that changed with the NLRB's San Manuel decision affirmed by the D.C. Circuit as noted above. Representative Noem's proposed legislation is intended to reverse the San Manuel decision.

NLRB Public Hearings on "Quickie" Elections to Proceed on July 18-19

When the National Labor Relations Board announced its proposed rulemaking to shorten the time between the filing of representation petitions and the resulting elections, it announced that it would hold public hearings on July 18th (and possibly 19th).  It allowed interested parties a few days to request participation.  A number of public officials and employer groups asked that the Board extend the time for the submission of written comments and schedule hearings in various locations following those submissions.

On Friday, the Board denied those requests, announcing that the previously announced time limits would stand:

The Board has received requests seeking, inter alia, to postpone the public meeting.  These requests have been made by Senators Enzi, Hatch and Isakson, by the United States Chamber of Commerce (joined by other organizations) and by the Workforce Fairness Institute.  Having duly considered these requests, the Board (Member Hayes, dissenting) has decided to proceed with the meeting as scheduled.  Sufficient public interest in participating in the meeting has been expressed to warrant extending the meeting through July 19, 2011.  Moreover, interested parties that are unable to participate in the hearing or wish to extend their oral remarks may do so through the submission of written comments by August 22, 2011, pursuant to the NPRM.

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce did not wait on the Board's public hearing, choosing to hold a hearing of its own this past Thursday, "Rushing Union Elections: Protecting the Interests of Big Labor at the Expense of Workers' Free Choice."  Witnesses included former NLRB Chairman Peter Schaumber, Dana Corp. employee Larry Getts, Indiana Professor Kenneth Dau-Schmidt, Appleton, Wisc. business owner John Carew, and Michael Lotito, Esq. of Jackson Lewis.

More Resources:

 

Rep. Noem (R-SD) Introduces Bill to Clarify Lack of NLRB Jurisdiction Over Sovereign Indian Tribes

On Thursday, Rep. Kristi Noem, (R-SD), introduced legislation to clarify that the National Labor Relations Board does not have jurisdiction over tribally owned businesses on reservation land as a matter tribal sovereignty. The bill, "To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian tribes on Indian lands under the National Labor Relations Act," (H.R. 2335) was immediately referred to committee. The text is not yet available from the Government Printing Office.

Until 2004, the NLRB's position regarding jurisdiction over Indian tribes as employers was that tribes were exempt from the NLRA.  That year, however, the Board shifted course entirely, asserting jurisdiction over the San Manuel Indian Bingo and Casino -- a tribal casino owned and operated by the San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians on tribal land in California.  The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed.  Rep. Noem has announced that this bill is intended to reverse that decision, but also suggests that beyond the jurisdictional issue, it is intended to limit labor's influence. A statement accompanying her introduction of the bill asserts:

The legislation stands to defend tribal sovereignty and promote economic opportunities on reservations lands by eliminating ambiguity in existing federal law.

“As a matter of sovereignty, the tribes don’t need big labor meddling in their affairs,” said Rep. Noem. “By removing this ambiguity in the law we can promote economic development on tribal land because businesses, large and small, need more certainty before they can grow.”

The bill is co-sponsored by five other Republicans, including House Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee Chair Rep. John Kline (R-MN) and Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

More commentary and resources:

 

House Subcommittee Hearing Looks at President Obama's Executive Order Regarding PLA's for Government Construction Contracts

Last Friday, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform held a hearing entitled "H.R. 735 And Project Labor Agreements: Restoring Competition & Neutrality To Gov't Construction Projects".  The bill number identified in the hearing title, introduced earlier this year by  Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK), is the Government Neutrality in Contracting Act (H.R. 735).   This and a similar bill (S. 119) would largely invalidate President Obama's Executive Order 13502

That EO, one of four issued during the President's first month in office in 2009, allows federal executive agencies to require contractors on large-scale government construction projects to enter into a project labor agreement as a condition of being awarded a contractA “project labor agreement” (PLA) is a pre-hire collective-bargaining agreement – often involving multiple employers and multiple unions – designed to systemize labor relations at a construction site.

Witnesses at Friday's hearing included Daniel Gordon, the Administrator of OMB's Office of Federal Procurement Policy; Susan Brita, Deputy Administrator of the GSA; Maurice Baskin, Esq., of Venable LLP; David Tuerck, Executive Director of the Beacon Hill Institute; Kirby Wu, of Wu & Associates; and Mike Kennedy, Esq., of the Associated General Contractors of America.

The prepared statements and submissions of these witnesses are linked above, and the video of the hearing is available at the Committee's website.

More resources & information:

House HELP Subcommittee Hearing Studies Union Corporate Campaigns and the NLRB

On May 26, 2011, the House Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions held a hearing entitled "Corporate Campaigns and the NLRB: The Impact of Union Pressure on Job Creation."  Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) opened the hearing, defining "a corporate campaign" as a "union effort to disrupt an employer’s routine business" in order to put pressure on the employer to facilitate union organizing.  These campaigns often include coordinated tactics such as negative advertising, legal and regulatory complaints filed at government agencies, public relations and consumer communications, and appeals to political and religious leaders.  Rep. Roe noted the increasing popularity of this strategy and some related concerns thus:

Over the years the use of corporate campaigns has accelerated. According to one study, between 1974 and 1999, only 200 corporate campaigns were identified. Yet in 2005 it was estimated that between 15 and 20 corporate campaigns were underway at any given time. And recently the National Labor Relations Board has taken a number of steps to expand the arsenal of tactics available for a corporate campaign.

The board has removed bannering restrictions previously placed on boycotts of neutral employers. Employees of onsite contractors have been granted greater access to the property of the contracting employer connected to organizing activity. The board has also requested briefs that could allow even greater access to an employer’s property.

Testifying at the hearing were labor lawyer Jonathan Fritts, Esq., of Morgan Lewis; Chet Karnas, owner of Lone Sun Builders, Inc.; David Bego, CEO of Executive Management Services; and, UC Law Professor Catherine Fisk.  An archived webcast of the hearing is available here, and the prepared introductory testimony of each witness is here

For more on corporate campaigns, see these earlier blog posts and other resources:

WaPo Opinion: "Labor's Hail Mary Pass"

In today's Washington Post, columnist Harold Meyerson chronicles frustration with the state of the labor movement in America and the resulting shift in the organizing strategy of the AFL-CIO and the SEIU.  In "Labor's Hail Mary Pass," he asserts this shift "reflects a belief that the American labor movement may be on the verge of extinction and must radically change its game."

After highlighting the failure of successive administrations to overhaul the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, he discusses the new strategic approaches these prominent labor organizations are taking in the face of dwindling private-sector union representation:

While some unions still wage more conventional organizing campaigns, the campaign that best captures the desperation of American labor today is that of the SEIU. Perhaps the best-funded and most strategically savvy of American unions, SEIU has embarked on a door-to-door canvass in the minority neighborhoods of 17 major American cities. The goal isn’t to enroll the people behind those doors in a conventional union but, rather, into a mass organization of the unemployed and the underpaid that can turn out votes in 2012 and act as an ongoing pressure group for job creation and worker rights during (presumably) Barack Obama’s second term.

“We realized we could organize one million more people into the union and it wouldn’t in itself really change anything,” SEIU President Mary Kay Henry told me earlier this year. “We needed to do something else — something more.”

The SEIU’s program — like its semi-counterpart in the AFL-CIO’s Working America program, a door-to-door canvass in white working-class neighborhoods — will surely help Democatic candidates, despite the frustrations that nearly all labor leaders feel toward the party. But, like Working America, it signals a strategic shift by American labor, whose ranks have been so reduced that it now must recruit people to a non-union, essentially non-dues-paying organization to amass the political clout that its own diminished ranks can no longer deliver. Since labor law now effectively precludes workplace representation, unions are turning to representing workers anywhere and in any capacity they can. It’s time, they’ve concluded, for the Hail Mary pass.

Read the entire piece here.

Rep. Issa (R-CA) Seeks Information From National Mediation Board Regarding "Radical" Rule Change

On May 11, 2010, the National Mediation Board announced that it was changing a decades-old rule regarding the way votes are counted in union representation elections under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).  By letter dated May 17, 2011, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to the Chairman of the NMB expressing concern over the change and requesting information regarding the change. 

Under longstanding RLA interpretation, a union would only be certified as a bargaining representative of a group of employees if a majority of all eligible voters cast ballots in favor of unionization -- the "majority in unit" standard.  The new standard, the "majority of votes cast" standard, essentially the standard applied by the National Labor Relations Board in elections under the NLRA -- a union is declared the representative of a unit of employees if a majority of the employees who cast valid ballots vote for union representation.

Rep. Issa's letter identfies a number of concerns with the change: exclusion of the Chairman from the consideration process; the influence of particular labor unions on the composition of the Board; and, the refusal to publish dissenting minority views, among other concerns.  In light of these concerns, and the "radical shift in the Board's interpretation of the Railway Labor Act," Rep. Issa requested production of a wide variety of documents in connection with the decision.  The letter requests designation of an NMB representative to provide a briefing by May 24, 2011, and production of the documents by June 1, 2011.

This is not the first challenge to the new rule.  On May 17, 2010, an association of airlines filed suit to block the rule, and a few weeks later, the NMB agreed to hold up implementation of the rule until June 30, while the Court considered the parties' respective motions.  That challenge failed and the rule became effective as of July 1, 2010. 

Last May, Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) introduced S.J. RES. 30, a Joint Resolution to express "congressional disapproval" of the NMB's administrative action.  The Senate voted 56 to 43 against the resolution.  This past February, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) introduced legislation to reverse the rule change. The "Restoring Democracy in the Workplace Act" (H.R. 548) was intended to repeal a rule published by the NMB on May 11, 2010, and the related regulations, but has gone nowhere beyond committee to date.

NYT: National Labor Relations Board to Sue Arizona, South Dakota Over Anti-Card-Check Amendments

Steven Greenhouse writes in the New York Times that the National Labor Relations Board plans to proceed with lawsuits against two of the four states it threatened earlier this year over state constitutional amendments to ban union recognition by card-check.  On January 14, 2011, Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon advised the Attorneys General of Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah that the National Labor Relations Act preempts constitutional amendments to require the use of secret ballots in union representation elections.  In response the states argued that the amendments support the current federal law and did not disrupt the federal regulatory scheme.  

In February, the Acting General Counsel replied to the states indicating that the Board would refrain from bringing suit while they discussed whether they could resolve the issue "without the necessity of costly litigation."  Now, Greenhouse reports the Board has indicated it will soon file federal lawsuits against Arizona and South Dakota seeking to invalidate the amendments: 

In a letter sent on Friday, the labor board told those states that it would invoke the United States Constitution’s supremacy clause in asserting that the state constitutional amendments conflict with federal laws and are pre-empted by those laws. One federal official said the lawsuits would be filed in the next few days.

The Board has suggested it might proceed against the other two states at a later date.  Greenhouse includes reaction from Arizona and South Dakota to the announcement: 

In an interview, Tom Horne, Arizona’s attorney general, criticized the board’s planned suit, saying, “I find it shocking that they do not believe in the fundamental principle of democracy that people have a right to a secret ballot.” He said that while federal pre-emption might apply to laws passed by Congress, it should not apply to the labor board’s decision allowing card check to be used in some unionization campaigns.

South Dakota’s attorney general, Marty J. Jackley, said he respectfully disagreed with the board’s analysis, adding that he did not believe the agency “has the authority under circumstances like this to sue a state.”

At a February 11, 2011 hearing before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, several witnesses indicated that any preemption dispute over this issue could be resolved by Congressional action on the Secret Ballot Protection Act.  That Act, which would require secret ballot elections in federal union representation proceedings, was introduced by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) on January 27, 2011 and Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) on March 15, 2011.

NAM Explores Political Future of NLRB Composition

At its Shopfloor blog, the National Association of Manufacturers today revisits the status of the various nominations and appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. 

President Obama nominated Member Craig Becker -- a former professor and attorney for SEIU and the AFL-CIO -- to the Board back in July of 2009.  In February 2010, the Senate failed to pass a cloture motion on Becker's nomination, by a vote of 52-33, and it was returned to the President.   The President subsequently recess appointed him to a Member's seat, and re-submitted his nomination in January 2011, generating a significant  amount of opposition including from Senators Michael Enzi (R-WY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). 

NAM notes rumors that the President may nominate Member Becker to the vacated seat of current Chairman Wilma Liebman whose term expires this summer.   A subsequent recess appointment to that vacancy, following another defeated nomination, may allow Member Becker an unconfirmed position on the Board through the end of the next session of Congress.

President Obama has also nominated Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon to serve a full four-year term as GC.  From NAM's assessment of where things may go: 

No Senate confirmation hearings have been scheduled for Becker, Solomon or President Obama’s nominee to fill a Republican vacancy on the board, Terence F. Flynn, current counsel to NLRB Member Brian Hayes (a Republican).

Standard operating, political procedure in the Senate would be to delay these confirmation hearings as long as possible. But in light of the board’s recent radical decisions, it might be better to schedule the Senate HELP Committee hearings as soon as possible to air out the NLRB’s political, pro-union agenda.

As for the House, we anticipate a renewed push by Republicans to defund the agency. The effort led by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) was stopped during the February budget debate by a vote of 176-250. ....

You can read the entire post here.

No Joke: NLRB Chairman Giving "Active Consideration" to Rulemaking For Quicker Elections

This past April Fool's Day, labor relations consultant Phil Wilson raised eyebrows and heart rates with his gag e-mail announcing that the National Labor Relations Board had adopted implemented a new 5-day timetable for union representation elections.  Our post the next day:

So, while LRI's April Fool's e-mail alert was a well-designed prank on employers and the management bar, none of us should be too shocked to see a very similar e-mail from LRI or others some time in the not too distant future...

We may soon see how distant "not so distant" is.  At Wednesday's hearing before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, Board Chairman Wilma Liebman acknowledged the Board is considering engaging in rulemaking to shorten the time frame from the filing of a representation petition to the conduct of an election.  As reported by the Chamber of Commerce's NLRB Insight blog:

Perhaps the most interesting revelation came when Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) asked Chairman Liebman about recent comments by Member Pearce regarding "quick snap" elections. Rep. Kingston's comments were likely referring to comments Member Pearce made at a conference at Suffolk University Law School in October. As reported by the Daily Labor Report (BNA), Member Pearce said that the Board must seek to hold an election as soon as possible after a petition is filed and that he found the system used in some parts of Canada, where elections are held in as little as 5 to 10 days, "intriguing."

In response, Chairman Liebman noted that while the current median time for elections is 38 days, the Board is giving "active consideration" to conducting rulemaking in this area and that the Board was looking at the various components that are part of the current secret ballot election process. In particular, the Board is considering whether these components are still working and necessary or whether they detract from the effectiveness of conducting elections.

Just a week before, the Chairman told NPR that the current NLRB election process is too long and favors management.  During the past few years, proponents of labor law reform like Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), former NLRB Chairman William Gould, and former Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) have advocated a shorter election period.

NLRB Officials Appear Before House Appropriations Subcommittee, Defend Request For Increased Funding

While the broader Congress continued to wrestle with extending continued funding for the federal government in FY 2011, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations on Wednesday held a Budget Hearing regarding the National Labor Relations Board's budget.   Board Chairman Wilma Liebman and Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon were the witnesses who appeared before the Subcommittee. 

As we noted in a post earlier this week, the Board's budget has recently been drawing increased attention.  H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act  (page 303, lines 17-19) would cut approximately $50 million from the agency's remaining budget for this year.  The Chairman and AGC have previously argued that this might force a 55-day furlough of Board staff.  This hearing, however, was focused on the Board's FY 2012 requested budget, which seeks an increase to $287.7 million.

At Wednesday's hearing, Chairman Liebman's submitted testimony included her report that over the past decade the NLRB has streamlined operations, cutting Board-side staff by nearly 25% and reducing the number of active Administrative Law Judges from 60 to 40.  On the heels of this decline in resources, Liebman noted:

Meanwhile, case intake has crept up after years of decline. At the ALJ level, case intake was up almost 7% in 2010 from the prior fiscal year and our trial backlog – cases docketed and awaiting trial – was up 5.6%. This Agency clearly still has an important role to play in the nation’s economy and we need adequate resources to carry out our statutory responsibilities.

In his prepared testimony, the Acting GC asserted the importance of the $4.3 million in increased funding the Board seeks for FY 2012, but also explained:

We are also in the process of studying how, using our present and future technological advances, the Agency could work in a more efficient and cost-effective manner. To this end, Chairman Liebman and I have created an Agency-wide work group, including representatives from our Regional Offices, Headquarters, and our employee unions. We have instructed this group to do a comprehensive assessment of the Agency's structure, processes, and footprint and to make recommendations to us by the end of this fiscal year of options for changes that we should consider to improve our service to the public and use taxpayer money effectively, while at the same time continuing to carry out our statutory mandate. We are also mindful, however, that structural changes take time to implement successfully, including time to have meaningful consultations with our stakeholders.

Appropriations to Hold Budget Hearing on National Labor Relations Board on Wednesday

National Labor Relations Board Chairman Wilma Liebman and Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon head to Capitol Hill this week to appear before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations.  On Wednesday, April 6, 2011, the Subcommittee for Labor, Health & Human Services, Education and Related Agencies will hold a Budget Hearing, with Chairman Liebman and AGC Solomon as the listed witnesses. 

While these hearings tend to be fairly routine in nature, the Board's budget has recently been drawing increased attention.  Back on February 18th, National Labor Relations Board Chairman Wilma B. Liebman and Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon issued a statement in response to the proposed cuts to the agency’s budget in H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act  (page 303, lines 17-19).  While an amendment to de-fund the Board entirely had just failed the day before, Chairman Liebman and AGC Solomon asserted the approved cuts might still force a substantial agency shut-down.  The House Committee on Education and the Workforce subsequently requested that the Board provide information in support of this assertion, and also regarding the later disclosure that the Board had run Google ads promoting union organizing

The Committee on Appropriations certainly has a differing focus from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, but we are certain to see some overlap at Wednesday's hearing.  Or...we should say "read" some overlap, as the hearing is not scheduled to be webcast.

The Subcommittee for Labor, Health & Human Services, Education and Related Agencies is chaired by Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT).  Its members are Ranking Member Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Reps. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Rodney Alexander (R-LA), Jack Kingston (R-GA), Kay Granger (R-TX), Mike Simpson (R-ID), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Nita Lowey (D-NY), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), and Barbara Lee (D-CA).

NLRB Provides Representation Case Data, Allows Submission of Supplemental Briefs in Specialty Healthcare

In a case questioned as evidence of the National Labor Relations Board’s desire to implement significant change in the way it determines appropriate units for bargaining, the NLRB last week extended the time for submission of supplemental briefs by interested parties. In February 2009, the Board granted the Employer’s Request for Review in Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile. On December 22, 2011, over the dissent of Member Brian Hayes, a three-Member Board majority issued a Notice and Invitation to File Briefs, 356 NLRB No. 56 (Dec. 22, 2010).

In this case, the union had petitioned for a unit of Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) only at the employer’s nursing home, excluding all other non-professional service and maintenance employees. The Regional Director’s determination that the limited petitioned-for unit was appropriate suggested further expansion of the application of the Board’s 1989 final rule regarding appropriate units in acute care hospitals over non-acute care facilities like the nursing home at issue.

The Board has invited interested parties to file briefs in connection with the case. The variety of questions presented explores whether and in what types of cases the Board should move away from its traditional case-by-case analysis of the appropriateness of a petitioned-for unit in favor of a more categorical approach. Briefs were originally due on or before February 22, 2011, but that deadline was previously extended to March 8, 2011. Responsive briefs are due tomorrow.

Over a dozen parties filed amicus briefs, including the American Hospital Association and American Society for Healthcare HR Administration, Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, SEIU, IUOE, and Senators Michael Enzi (R-WY), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA).

Many of the briefs filed by labor organizations focus predominantly on the facts of Specialty Healthcare, choosing to answer the Board’s questions regarding the propriety of the CNA-only unit in the nursing home at issue in that case.

In a brief prepared by Proskauer, however, RILA asserts that the Board’s consideration of a presumptive rule here is based on Member Becker's unsuccessful effort in Wheeling Island Gaming, 355 NLRB No. 127 (August 27, 2010) to adopt as appropriate a very limited unit of just the "poker dealers" at a casino, while excluding all other card dealers.  RILA argues that a presumptive rule based on "employees performing a job" or simply on a "proposed unit" – as considered here -- violates the Board’s mandate, the legislative history of the Act and relevant case law. The broader management concern:

In place of predictability, the Board’s rule would insert the unknown. Instead of stability, it would offer the potential for chaos, as employees currently – and, according to Board precedent, appropriately – placed within homogeneous single-facility bargaining units could be splintered into departmental fiefdoms, each of which would seek to gain leverage and personal advantage. Put simply, 60 years of success indicates there is no problem with the single-store, single-unit presumption the Board currently applies. History likewise suggests that there is every reason to maintain this stability, and not to adopt the change suggested by the Board’s questions.

In addition, Senators Enzi, Hatch and Isakson requested that the Board provide representation case data which might be relevant to the issues under consideration. By letter dated March 7, 2011, Reps. John Kline (R-MN) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) expanded upon this request, asking the Board to post requested representation case data on the Board’s website. Both groups of legislators asked for an extension of time within which to file briefs once the information was provided.

In response, the Board has posted representation case data for the years 2000 to 2011 on NLRB.gov. Moreover, the Board has granted interested parties permission to file ten-page supplemental briefs, based on issues implicated by this data alone, by March 29, 2011.

House Oversight Committee Holds Hearing on Project Labor Agreements

On Wednesday morning, the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform held a hearing entitled "Regulatory Impediments to Job Creation: The Cost of Doing Business in the Construction Industry".  A main focus of the hearing was President Obama's Executive Order 13502.  That EO, one of four issued during the President's first month in office in 2009, allows federal executive agencies to require contractors on large-scale government construction projects to enter into a project labor agreement as a condition of being awarded a contractA “project labor agreement” (PLA) is a pre-hire collective-bargaining agreement – often involving multiple employers and multiple unions – designed to systemize labor relations at a construction site.

Last month, Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK) introduced a bill designed to reverse Executive Order 13502.  The Government Neutrality in Contracting Act (H.R. 735) and a similar bill (S. 119) would largely invalidate the President's Order in the absence of special circumstances

Witnesses at Wednesday's hearing included Ennis Electric Co. CEO John Ennis, Jr., on behalf of NFIB; Figg Engineering CEO Linda Figg on behalf of CIRT; Maurice Baskin, Esq. on behalf of Associated Builders & Contractors; Bay Electric CEO Jay Biagas; Michigan State Professor Dr. Dale Berman; Commissioner of the  Public Buildings Service Robert Peck; Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Daniel Gordon; and the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OHS, Hon. David Michaels.  The prepared statements and submissions of these witnesses are already available, and the video of the hearing will be available, at the Committee's website.

More resources & information:

Secret Ballot Protection Act Introduced in House

Chairman of the House HELP Sub-Committee, Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) has introduced the Secret Ballot Protection Act (H.R. 972).  Back on January 27, 2011, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced the Senate version of the bill (S. 217).  Rep. Roe's bill tracks Senator DeMint's bill, and the language of the bill as introduced in previous sessions of Congress.

While the bill faces numerous mathematical obstacles to passage in the Senate, not to mention a certain Presidential veto, the House version should pass easily.  As the National Labor Relations Board and proponents of the Employee Free Choice Act continue to expand endorsement of alternative methods of union recognition, we should expect the House might conduct hearings on this bill.  In recent hearings before Rep. Roe's Sub-Committee, management attorneys urged Congress to pass the Secret Ballot Protection Act in order to avoid the pre-emption battle unfolding between the National Labor Relations Board and state governments over state secret ballot constitutional amendments.

More resources and commentary:

House Committee Seeks Information From NLRB Regarding Google Ads

Last week,NAM's Shopfloor blog and others questioned why the National Labor Relations Board was promoting unionization via ads on Google. Late on Friday, the NLRB issued a statement clarifying that it had not paid for the ads and that it was discontinuing their use. 

On the heels of last week's letter seeking information from the NLRB about its budget claims in the wake of the debate over H.R. 1, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce has now sent a letter requesting information about the agency's Google ads.  In a letter to NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman dated March 4, 2011, Committee Chairman Rep. John Kline (R-MN) asserts:

To protect employees' rights under the NLRA, the NLRB must maintain a neutral position between unions, employees, and employers.

The letter then requests the following information be produced by March 18th:

1.  All documents and communications relating to Google advertisements.

2.  All documents and communications relating to the NLRB's advertising strategy and goals.

3.  Itemized list of all advertising disbursements.

More resources and commentary:

House Committee on Education & The Workforce Requests Information From NLRB Regarding Budget Claims

On Friday, February 18, National Labor Relations Board Chairman Wilma B. Liebman and Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon issued a statement responding to proposed cuts to the agency’s budget under consideration in H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act  (page 303, lines 17-19).  The statement indicated that the only way to deal with the budgetary reduction would be to furlough all of the NLRB's employees for nearly three months.  The statement has subsequently been removed from the NLRB's website.

Yesterday afternoon, the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Rep. John Kline (R-MN), and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) sent a letter to Chairman Liebman requesting production of information in support of her assertion.  The letter makes requests as follows:

1.  All data supporting your assertion that a $50 million NLRB budget reduction for fiscal year 2011 would force the NLRB to furlough all of its 1,665 employees for 55 workdays between now and the end of September.

2.  All documents and communications relating to the February 18, 2011 joint statement you issued with Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon relating to the $50 million NLRB budget reduction.

3.  All NLRB Performance Budget Justifications from fiscal year 1999 to 20009.

4.  Identify each fiscal year in which the NLRB had a surplus.

NLRB Chairman Liebman and Acting General Counsel Solomon Submit Statements to House Committee Education & The Workforce

On February 11, 2011, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing entitled "Emerging Trends at the National Labor Relations Board."  Witnesses at that hearing were highly critical of the recent activity of the Board.  That afternoon, NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman issued a statement declaring that the agency was merely "coming back to life after a long period of dormancy."

Late last week, Chairman Liebman and Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon submitted separate written statements for inclusion in the hearing record.  Acting GC Solomon's letter focuses on his numerous initiatives announced by GC Memoranda the past few months.

Chairman Liebman's statement takes exception to the testimony of the management attorneys on the panel, and continues her defense of the agency's direction thus:

What are the "emerging trends" at the Board?  I think there are three.

First, greater productivity in decision-making, reflecting the Board's new quorum and with it, the ability to decide cases and avoid deadlock.  Second, greater transparency and public participation in its decision-making -- perhaps at the price of greater controversy, but with a corresponding gain in the fairness and quality of the Board's decision-making process.  Third, a willingness to take carefully considered steps to keep the National Labor Relations Act vital, as exemplified in the Board's unanimous decision to begin awarding compound interest on backpay awards to employees victimized by unfair labor practices -- more than 20 years after the Board was first urged to adopt that remedial change.

Bill Introduced to Reverse President Obama's Executive Order on Project Labor Agreements

On Wednesday, Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK) introduced a bill designed to reverse President Obama's Executive Order 13502.  That EO, one of four issued during the President's first month in office in 2009, allows federal executive agencies to require contractors on large-scale government construction projects to enter into a project labor agreement as a condition of being awarded a contractA “project labor agreement” (PLA) is a pre-hire collective-bargaining agreement – often involving multiple employers and multiple unions – designed to systemize labor relations at a construction site.

Rep. Sullivan's Government Neutrality in Contracting Act (H.R. 735) and a similar bill (S. 119) would largely invalidate the President's Order in the absence of special circumstances.  Section (a) of the bill states:

      (1) GENERAL RULE- The head of each executive agency that awards any construction contract after the date of enactment of this Act, or that obligates funds pursuant to such a contract, shall ensure that the agency, and any construction manager acting on behalf of the Federal Government with respect to such contract, in its bid specifications, project agreements, or other controlling documents does not--
        (A) require or prohibit a bidder, offeror, contractor, or subcontractor from entering into, or adhering to, agreements with 1 or more labor organizations, with respect to that construction project or another related construction project; or
        (B) otherwise discriminate against or give preference to a bidder, offeror, contractor, or subcontractor because such bidder, offeror, contractor, or subcontractor--
          (i) becomes a signatory, or otherwise adheres to, an agreement with 1 or more labor organizations with respect to that construction project or another related construction project; or
          (ii) refuses to become a signatory, or otherwise adhere to, an agreement with 1 or more labor organizations with respect to that construction project or another related construction project.

President Obama's EO 13502 encouraged federal agencies to use PLAs on any construction project worth more than $25 million, but did not require them.  It did also require the O.M.B. to investigate expansion of the use of PLAs on federal construction projects.  The White House's related statement of policy explained the goals of the EO as follows:

The use of a project labor agreement may prevent these problems from developing by providing structure and stability to large-scale construction projects, thereby promoting the efficient and expeditious completion of Federal construction contracts. Accordingly, it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement.

Law360 reports that Rep. Sullivan sent out a letter to his colleagues earlier this week describing the Executive Order as an “'anti-competitive and costly measure encouraging federal agencies to mandate union favoring” agreements that raise construction costs from 12 to 18 percent":

“In short, government-mandated PLAs are nothing more than schemes to repay big labor bosses for political support by steering lucrative federal construction contracts to unionized companies and their unionized workforces,” Sullivan said.

“Instead of pandering to special interests, Congress should be doing all it can to ensure fair and open competition on federal construction contracts, and help deliver to taxpayers the best possible construction project at the lowest possible price,” he said.

The House bill has 23 co-sponsors.  Committee hearings are expected on the bills soon.

More resources and commentary:

 

Amendment to Defund National Labor Relations Board Fails House Floor Vote

As we reported yesterday, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) introduced an amendment to H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act  to defund the National Labor Relations Board for the remainder of the 2011 Fiscal Year.  In response to an inquiry about this proposal, Rep. Price told Labor Relations Today:

The spending spree in Washington has put our nation on a perilous path to fiscal ruin.  House Republicans understand we need to cut spending immediately to help get our economy growing and more Americans back to work.  Every step we can take to responsibly rollback the cost of government is important.  By striking $233 million in funding for the National Labor Relations Board, we can save taxpayer dollars and help protect American job creators from an out-of-control agency bent on installing ‘card check’ (Secret Ballot Destruction Act) via regulations and circumventing the will of the American people.

The House Clerk's minutes of the Floor proceedings overnight indicate that following debate on the Amendment, the Chair announced approval by a voice vote.  Rep. George Miller (D-CA), Ranking Member of the Committee on Education & the Workforce, then demanded a voice vote, which resulted in postponement of further proceedings:

12:01 A.M. - Amendment offered by Mr. Price (GA).

An amendment numbered 410 printed in the Congressional Record to eliminate funding for the National Labor Relations Board.

DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Price (GA) amendment under the five-minute rule.  

12:15 A.M. - POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Price (GA) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed.  Mr. George Miller (CA) demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.

It appears that late this morning, the House took a recorded roll call vote (No.75) and the amendment failed.

Georgia Congressman Introduces Amendment to Defund National Labor Relations Board

The House continues its consideration of H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act for FY2011.  This bill, if passed, will make appropriations for the continuing operation of the various federal government agencies through September 30, 2011.  As reported by The Hill several hundred additional amendments have recently been introduced, which are taking up considerable time in the debate.

Among the amendments introduced is C.R. 578, introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), to defund the National Labor Relations Board, as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to carry out and implement the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.)

Indeed, there are several hundred similar proposals to defund this or that amongst the offered amendments to H.R. 1, and many will fall victim to political horse-trading and debate as the Republicans and Democrats work to finalize a bill to continue funding Department of Defense appropriations, among other things.  Yet on the heels of last Friday's House Committee hearing on the new "aggressive" tone of the National Labor Relations Board, and the Board Chairman's assertive response, this would seem to provide a harbinger of things to come with respect to Congressional oversight of the agency.

Georgia Rep Introduces Bill to Reverse NMB Rule on Union Elections

Last week, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) introduced legislation to reverse a controversial rule change implemented by the National Mediation Board (NMB) last year which made it easier to organize unions in the airline industry. The "Restoring Democracy in the Workplace Act" (H.R. 548) is intended to repeal a rule published by the NMB on May 11, 2010, and the related regulations.

The NMB rule at issue changed the manner in which the results are determined in union representation elections under the Railway Labor Act.  Previously, a decades-old rule provided that a union would only be certified as a bargaining representative of a group of employees if a majority of all eligible voters cast ballots in favor of unionization -- the "majority in unit" standard.  The new standard, the "majority of votes cast" standard, matches the standard applied by the National Labor Relations Board in elections under the NLRA -- a union is declared the representative of a unit of employees if a majority of the employees who cast valid ballots vote for union representation.  After a court challenge failed to halt the agency's promulgation, the new rule went into effect.

Rep.Gingrey's proposal is simple:

Effective January 1, 2011, the rule prescribed by the National Mediation Board relating to representation election procedures published on May 11, 2010 (95 Fed. Reg. 26062) and revising sections 1202 and 1206 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, shall have no force or effect.

While the House bill has currently has thirty-two co-sponsors, and is likely to pass a vote there, the Senate will remain a hurdle for the bill.  Last May, Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) introduced S.J. RES. 30, a Joint Resolution to express "congressional disapproval" of the NMB's administrative action.  The Senate voted 56 to 43 against the resolution.  Senators Lincoln (D-AR), Pryor (D-AR) and Nelson (D-NE) crossed the aisle to vote in support of the resolution.  All Republican Senators voted for the measure with the exception of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) who did not vote.  A similar pattern, even if GOP pick-ups provide a majority, will still likely fall short of the numbers needed for a cloture vote.

NLRB Chairman: Board "is coming back to life after a long period of dormancy"

Following this morning's House Committee hearings on the National Labor Relations Board's recent activity, NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman has issued this statement:

This morning, a subcommittee of the House Education and The Workforce Committee held a hearing on "Emerging Trends at the National Labor Relations Board". In response to requests for comment, Chairman Wilma Liebman issued the following statement:

"The most significant ‘emerging trend’ at the NLRB is that the agency is coming back to life after a long period of dormancy. After more than two years without a quorum due to chronic vacancies, the Board now has four members and has been tackling many of the difficult cases that languished for years. We are actively seeking input from practitioners and from the public, by inviting briefs for important cases that are under review, and by using the process of federal rulemaking to seek comments on one potential rule change intended to inform American employees of their statutory workplace rights. 

 It is unfortunate that the work of the Board is often viewed through a partisan lens, but that has been the case for decades. We simply intend, to the best of our ability, to continue to apply the law and carry out the agency’s statutory mission fairly and openly.  I look forward to working with Congress in the months ahead to demonstrate our adherence to that goal, and I welcome a serious dialogue about these important issues."

Summarizing Today's House Hearings on Recent NLRB Activity

If you missed the hearings held this morning by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and weren't able to follow our live-Tweet stream of the proceedings, you can watch the archived webcast here.

In his opening statement, Chairman Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) introduced the hearing thus:

That is why today’s discussion about the National Labor Relations Board is so important. The NLRB was created more than 75 years ago to perform two functions: first, to determine by free democratic choice whether workers desire union representation and if so, by which union; and second, to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices by employers and unions. 

The board serves as a quasi-judicial body. Its five members are chosen by the president, and the majority of members share the president’s views on labor policy. As a result, the board has generated a lot of debate over the years. However, that debate has recently been elevated to new heights since the board abandoned its traditional sense of fairness and neutrality and instead embraced a far-more activist approach. 

Numerous actions by the board suggest it’s eager to tilt the playing field in favor of powerful special interests against the interests of rank-and-file workers.

The statements of witnesses Philip Miscimarra of Morgan Lewis; G. Roger King of Jones Day; former General Counsel Arthur Rosenfeld; and NYU Professor Cynthia Estlund are available online.

As one can see from the witness statements and our live-Tweet transcript of the question and answer portion, there was much discussion at today's hearing about:

We will continue to follow and report on these trends and developments as they unfold.

House Education & The Workforce Committee Hearings: "Emerging Trends at the National Labor Relations Board"

In about an hour, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce will gavel in its hearing, "Emerging Trends at the National Labor Relations Board."  We will be "Tweeting" real-time updates from the hearing on our Twitter feed, @LRToday, and updating this blog feed regularly.

In advance of the hearing, here is some of the press coverage of today's proceedings:

 UPDATE:  Re-cap of the hearing can be found here.

House Committee to Hold Hearings on Recent NLRB Activity

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce has announced that on Friday, February 11 at 10:00 a.m., the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee will hold a hearing on "Emerging Trends at the National Labor Relations Board" in room 2175 of the Rayburn House Office Building. According to the Committee's press release:

Members will receive testimony that provides a broad overview of the board’s history and authority, as well as discusses recent actions taken by the board that suggest a more activist approach to its interpretation of the law governing relations between employers and union representatives.

Scheduled witnesses include Philip Miscimarra, partner at Morgan Lewis; G. Roger King, partner at Jones Day; Arthur Rosenfeld, former NLRB General Counsel; and Professor Cynthia Estlund, NYU Law School.  The hearing may be viewed live tomorrow here.

For more information on items certain to be on the Committee's agenda at the hearing, check out the posts in our "Bush Board Reversal," "NLRB Decisions," and "NLRB Rule-Making" tabs at right.

UPDATE:  Re-cap of the hearing can be found here.

Congressman Introduces House Resolution Opposing Bailout of State and Local Pension Funds

On the first day of the new Congress, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced a House Resolution:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Federal Government should not bail out State and local government employee pension plans or other plans that provide post-employment benefits to State and local government retirees.

The Resolution lays out a litany of financial challenges facing the federal government, state and local governments, Social Security and related trust funds, and various government employee pension funds.  Most critically, the Resolution asserts:

numerous State and local government employee pension plans have offered overly generous retirement benefits to its employees and are in dire financial situations with combined unfunded liabilities up to $3 trillion...

Substantively, the Resolution declares:

(1) the Federal Government should not bailout State and local government employee pension plans and other post-employment benefit plans; and

(2) State and local governments should immediately institute reforms to their employee pensions plans, including replacing defined benefit plans with defined contribution plans.

As this is a simple Resolution, it will not advance toward promulgation as an actual law.  The result of a House vote on this, however, may very well impact how state and local government approach what has become an extremely pressing issue.

More Resources and Commentary:

House Committee Re-Named "Education and the Workforce Committee"

Following through on changes announced late last month, upon being sworn in today House Republicans re-named the House Committee on Education and Labor.  As of this evening, the Committee's website reflects the new name of the "Education and the Workforce Committee."

As noted in a December 24 Wall Street Journal blog piece, this is not the first time the Committee has borne that name:

For years, the committee was called Education and Labor. But when Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took over the House in 1994, they wanted to show that there was a new sheriff in town—and he was not a pro-labor sheriff.

So they changed the name to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. Unfortunately, no one knew what that meant, nor could anyone remember the name. So it was soon changed to Education and the Workforce.

“Workforce” is a term employers are likely to use, while “labor” is more evocative of the union movement—after all, they call it the American Federation of Labor. So when the Democrats recaptured the House in 2006, they changed the name of the committee back.

Outgoing Chairman, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) tweeted tonight that:

FYI--Links to the education and labor website are now broken. Find EdWorkforceDemocrats now at http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov

As for substantive matters, incoming Chairman Rep. John Kline (R-MA) previously announced the Republican complement of the Committee was expected to include: Rep-elect Lou Barletta (PA-11), Rep. Judy Biggert (IL-13), Rep. Rob Bishop (UT-1), Rep-elect Larry Bucshon (IN-8), Rep-elect Scott DesJarlais (TN-4), Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC-5), Rep-elect Richard Hanna (NY-24), Rep-elect Joe Heck (NV-3), Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA-52), Rep-elect Mike Kelly (PA-3), Rep. Buck McKeon (CA-25), Rep-elect Kristi Noem (SD-AL), Rep. Tom Petri (WI-6), Rep. Todd Platts (PA-19), Rep. Phil Roe (TN-1), Rep-elect Todd Rokita (IN-4), Rep. Glenn Thompson (PA-5) , and Rep-elect Tim Walberg (MI-7).

More commentary:


How Will Republican Landslide Impact Major Labor Legislation?

On Tuesday, Republicans gained a majority in the House, picking up at least 60 seats with several more races remaining too close to call. Republicans also picked up 6 seats in the Senate but fell short of gaining the majority. MLA’s client advisory on the election results is available here. What impact might the significant Republican gains in the Congress have on developments in labor law?

The widely held consensus suggests that the most ambitious proposed piece of labor legislation – the Employee Free Choice Act – is “dead.”   The Las Vegas Journal Review was quick to celebrate this notion in an op-ed “Card Check: R.I.P.”  Of course, there had been no chance that the bill was going to pass in its original incarnation as early as March of last year.  The bill, most recently introduced as H.R. 1409, S. 560, would would amend the National Labor Relations Act to make it easier for unions to organize employees. The bill would also require interest arbitration of first contracts after 120 days and would strengthen penalties for certain unfair labor practices. 

The card-check provisions, however, faced vocal opposition from Republican and moderate Democrat Senators alike – failing to obtain enough votes for cloture even when the Democratic caucus controlled 60 votes in the Senate.   It is unlikely that there will be enough votes to pass the bill again in the House (as was done in 2008) – especially since, as of this time, at least forty-five co-sponsors of H.R.1409 will no longer be serving in the 112th Congress.

There have also been measures introduced to guarantee the availability of the secret ballot in union representation elections. Tuesday, four states passed initiatives to that effect.  These measures will face stiff Court challenges on the grounds of federal preemption of labor law.  But last year, federal legislation was also introduced as a bar to EFCA’s card-check provisions. The Secret Ballot Protection Act (H.R. 1176, S. 478) would make it unlawful for an employer

to recognize or bargain collectively with a labor organization that has not been selected by a majority of such employees in a secret ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board in accordance with section 9 [of the NLRA].

The bill was introduced in the 111th Congress by Rep. John Kline (R-MN) -- the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Labor.  Consistent with our earlier speculation, this week Rep. Kline expressed his interest in chairing that Committee in the Republican-controlled House. It is unlikely that his chairmanship and the Republican House majority alone will be sufficient to see legislation like this pass, particularly in light of the Democratic Senate and Presidential veto, but it may be enough to take the issue of card check recognition off the table either way during any legislative discussions.

 

Since this split government will make major legislative initiatives difficult, it is entirely likely that we will continue to see changes advanced by administrative and executive action.  Early in this administration, the White House showed a willingness to advance elements of its labor agenda via the issuance of executive orders. Moreover, the new National Labor Relations Board, with a weighted 3-to-1 Democrat tilt, has already been more aggressive – urging the increased use of preliminary injunctive relief, significantly expanding traditional Board remedies and granting review in cases expected to invite reversals of Board precedent. We may reasonably expect these trends – as well as an increase in administrative rule-making power – to continue. During the next few weeks, we will explore these issues here in further detail.

NYT: Unions Fear GOP Election Wins

In today's New York Times, labor beat writer Steven Greenhouse has a piece entitled "Unions Fear a Rollback of Rights Under Republicans."  The article cites concerns by the leaders of AFSCME and the AFL-CIO that Republican Congressional majorities would pursue legislation contrary to union interests.

One such item mentioned is the Secret Ballot Protection Act -- a bill designed precisely opposite the card check provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act.  Both these bills have previously been proposed repeatedly.  EFCA was introduced as H.R. 1409 and S. 560 in the 111th Congress, and before that as H.R. 800 (which passed the House) and S. 1041 in the 110th.  The Secret Ballot Protection Act was originally proposed in the 110th Congress as H.R. 866 by the late Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), but was proposed more recently in the 111th as H.R. 1176, S. 478.  The bill's most recent introducing sponsor was Rep. John Kline (R-MN) -- the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Labor.  A takeover of the House by the G.O.P. may well result in Rep. Kline's chairmanship on that committee with oversight of labor legislation.

Professor Jeffrey Hirsch thinks this

discussion of the expected legislative bills--including a prohibition against voluntary recognition and a requirement that all employees opt-in to political spending--to be a bit silly, as even if the Republican control both houses, such bills are a dead letter in the near-term (a little thing called "presidential veto" still exists).

I agree with his assessment that the more important -- if not, most important -- portion of the article is the speculation by former NLRB General Counsel Ronald Meisberg

that if a Republican-controlled House cripples labor-backed legislative efforts to make it easier for workers to unionize, the Democratic-controlled labor board might take administrative steps. Mr. Meisburg, a lawyer at Proskauer Rose, noted that one Democratic labor-board member recently proposed making a change in the timing of workplace elections after employees file a petition to hold a unionization vote, reducing the delay to just five or 10 days. Unions want an accelerated schedule because they say employers have too much time to ply workers with antiunion propaganda, but employers complain that such quick elections would deny employers an adequate opportunity to campaign against unionizing.

The recent activity of the National Labor Relations Board and the President's early reliance on Executive Orders on labor matters provide ample grounds to suspect greater action via administrative means if the elections produce a split government.

NYT: "Dems Look to Unions"

Stephen Greenhouse in the New York Times, "Democrats Look to Clout of Unions as Vote Nears" (October 22, 2010):

The giant union of government workers, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is promising to spend a record $66 million this year on get-out-the-vote efforts, voter education and political advertisements. That includes $16 million that the union recently took out of an emergency fund, and it comes on top of $21 million it spent last year, mainly on state and local races. The union says it has spent $17 million on broadcast advertisements so far this year.

Reflecting a growing dispute between unions and the Chamber of Commerce, the public employees’ union is arguing that its campaign spending this year is less than the Chamber’s $75 million, even though the union has spent $87 million over the two-year election cycle.

The A.F.L.-C.I.O. plans to spend about $50 million in this year’s campaign, while the Service Employees International Union, one of the most politically active unions, plans to spend $44 million, including $14 million already spent on advertisements.

Labor’s role is especially important to the Democrats because it succeeded in 2008 in making inroads with a crucial demographic: blue-collar white men. While white male nonunion workers voted against President Obama by a margin of 16 percentage points in 2008, he won among white male union workers by 18 percentage points. Moreover, these voters are in the swing states that matter — for instance, about 30 percent of Pennsylvania voters come from union households, as do 35 percent of Ohio voters.

Both states have hard-fought, crucial races for governor and United States senator.

Of the 75 Democratic House seats in play, A.F.L.-C.I.O. leaders say, 37 of those districts have high union membership, with more than 40,000 union voters.

The A.F.L.-C.I.O. says that so far this fall its volunteers have given out 17.5 million leaflets, made 23.6 million phone calls, mailed out 18.6 million fliers and knocked on 1.3 million doors, including 183,000 last Saturday.

WaPo: NLRB Member Becker's Refusal to Recuse Questioned

Today's Washington Post reports:

Republicans and anti-union groups are demanding that a new member of the National Labor Relations Board recuse himself from cases involving chapters of the union he used to work for, a continuation of the fight that surrounded his nomination.

The National Right to Work Foundation sent a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. last week, requesting an investigation into Craig Becker's decision to hear cases involving local chapters of the Service Employees International Union. Becker worked as an associate general counsel for the 1.8 million-member union and the AFL-CIO before his appointment by President Obama in March.

Soon after Member Becker began hearing cases following his recess appointment, Respondents began moving for his recusal from cases involving the SEIU, AFL-CIO or their affilliates.  In connection with the Board's decision in Service Employees Local 121RN (Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center), Case No. 21-CB-14428 (June 8, 2010), Member Becker issued a decision on all such motions.  He stated therein that he would recuse himself from any cases in which the SEIU or the AFL-CIO was a party, but not from cases involving a subordinate chapter or local.  He indicated that the SEIU international union is a "separate and distinct legal entity" by whom he was employed.

According to the WaPo report, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is not satisfied with that position:

"There's clear reason to question Becker's impartiality," said Issa spokesman Frederick Hill. "His former employer, SEIU International, tightly controls its local chapters. With such gaping loopholes, the Obama administration's ethics pledge Becker signed isn't worth the paper it was printed on."

Issa requested an investigation by the labor board's inspector general, who responded by affirming Becker's interpretation. A Justice Department spokesman said there is no response yet to last week's letter.

Member Becker remains the only one of the current Board Members whose appointment has not been confirmed by the Senate.

Amendment to Supplemental Appropriation Bill Would Extend Federal Collective Bargaining Rights to State Public Safety Workers

Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) proposed an amendment (S. Amdt. 4174) to an Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill that would extend collective-bargaining rights to all public safety workers employed by states or localities.  In its findings, the language includes:

    (4) The absence of adequate cooperation between public safety employers and employees has implications for the security of employees and can affect interstate and intrastate commerce. The lack of such labor-management cooperation can detrimentally impact the upgrading of police and fire services of local communities, the health and well-being of public safety officers, and the morale of the fire and police departments. Additionally, these factors could have significant commercial repercussions. Moreover, providing minimal standards for collective bargaining negotiations in the public safety sector can prevent industrial strife between labor and management that interferes with the normal flow of commerce.

    (5) Many States and localities already provide public safety officers with collective bargaining rights comparable to or greater than the rights and responsibilities set forth in this title, and such State and local laws should be respected.

The amendment language is identical to the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009 (S. 1611) introduced in March 2009 by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH). This bill had been introduced in successive congressional sessions since the 1990’s, including the 110th Congress, where it had strong bipartisan support before faltering. As reported earlier this year in The Hill:

In 2007, the bill passed the House with more than 300 votes and was in a strong position to clear the Senate. But President George W. Bush issued a veto threat and the Senate bill’s lead Democratic sponsor, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), fell ill. The legislation then became overrun with amendments and subsequently fizzled on the Senate floor.

On March 10, 2010, the House Education and Labor Committee held hearings on the bill, transcripts of which are available here.  Seeing as there were at least five GOP co-sponsors to Sen. Gregg’s similar bill, it is highly likely that this amendment will pass and become part of the Supplemental. Deliberation on the Amendment and Supplemental is scheduled to resume today.

More coverage:

House Education and Labor Committee Hearing on First Contract Negotiations: Post-Doc Bargaining at Cal

In our Weekend Round-Up this past weekend, we noted that the House Education and Labor Committee had held a hearing on April 30, 2010 in Berkeley, California for the expressed purpose of:

exploring the challenges in first contract labor negotiations by examining the difficulty of reaching a first contract agreement in negotiations between the University of California and its post-doctoral scholars’ union.

The prepared testimony of the witnesses was previously posted online.  Earlier today, the Committee made available an mp3 file of the hearing

While the Employee Free Choice Act itself was not an overt focus of the hearing -- NAM's ShopFloor.org blog pointed out "negotiations concerning state employees are governed by state labor laws, not the National Labor Relations Act" --  it cannot be lost on any that "Facilitating Initial Collective Bargaining Agreements" has long been one of the express goals of that proposed legislation.  We might reasonably expect some of the testimony from this hearing to be cited if and when the Congress takes up amending the NLRA again in the future in whatever form.

Weekend Round-Up

NLRB Decision:  Another day, another new Board decision in a 10(k) jurisdictional dispute.  In Laborers International Union of North America, Local 1184 (Highlight Electric, Inc.), 355 NLRB No. 29 (Apr. 29, 2010), Chairwoman Liebman, and Members Schaumber and Pearce, issued a Determination awarding LIUNA work claimed by an IBEW local in Riverside, California.  This is the fourth decision issued by the new Board, all by this particular three-member panel.

NLRB Election Report: Last week, the Board also posted a link to its Six Month Election Report for October 2009 to March 2010 with Cases Closed March 2010.  During the covered time period, labor unions won 63.1% of all representation elections -- 454 of 719 elections held.

First Contract Hearing:  On Friday, April 30, the House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing at Berkeley City College Auditorium entitled "Understanding Problems in First Contract Negotiations: Post-Doctoral Scholar Bargaining at the University of California."   The House Education & Labor website described the hearing as follows:

The U.S. House Education and Labor Committee will hold a field hearing in Berkeley, Calif. exploring the challenges in first contract labor negotiations by examining the difficulty of reaching a first contract agreement in negotiations between the University of California and its post-doctoral scholars’ union.

In November 2008, after three years of organizing, the California Public Employment Relations Board certified the post-doctorial scholars union at the University of California. Despite this, the University of California system and the post-doctoral scholars, represented by the UAW, have been unable to reach a first contract.

Because the hearing was held offsite, there was no webcast or video.  The prepared testimony of each witness is available online, and we look forward to reviewing and posting the transcript if and when it becomes available.  [CORRECTION: Thanks to House Ed & Labor Specialist Mike Kruger for picking up our typo.  The hearing was held by the House Education & Labor Committee -- "HELP" is, of course, the similar Senate committee.]

AFL-CIO President: EFCA, Change To Win Reunion Not Dead Issues

Politico's Ben Smith on AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka today:

AFL-CIO President said the Employee Free Choice Act, which had apparently been left for dead by congressional Democrats, remains a top priority of the federation.

The AFL removed a giant EFCA banner from its Washington headquarters today, prompting speculation of a quiet concession of defeat.

"It was just starting to rip," he said. "We'll put up another one. We're still working hard."

"We'll find something to tack it on," he said (of the legislation, not the banner).

Trumka also said he was optimistic that incoming SEIU President Mary Kay Henry would bring that giant union back into the AFL-CIO.

"Obviously, the door is open. I think she has shown an interest in it," he said, adding that he hadn't spoken to Henry since she consolidated internal SEIU support. "She has said and her supporters have said they're tired of being isolated."

"You had six leaders at the international level who tried an experiment that obviously didn't work, and now it's time to bring everybody back," he said of the breakaway Change to Win group.

More coverage:

SEIU's Anna Burger Suggests Reconciliation, NLRB Rule-Making to Push EFCA

Following Andy Stern's surprising announcement that he would step down as President of SEIU, his protege, Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger and California-based labor leader, Mary Kay Henry seek to succeed him.  This weekend, in a memorandum to the union's International Executive Board, Ms. Burger laid out her vision for the priorities she would have the union pursue.  Listed within the first:

Use smart strategies to push the laborfriendly majority on the NLRB to level the playing field and make it easier to organize through regulation and reconciliation to make quick elections and first contract arbitration the law of the land.

And finally we must face up to the challenge of rebuilding our ability to win traditional NLRB organizing campaigns, as well as exploring new models for organizing the private/private sector where millions of workers, not dependent on shrinking public dollars live on poverty wages in SEIU strongholds.

The first point is likely to raise eyebrows among EFCA-watchers who have recently heard mixed, but generally negative, assessments of the bill's current prospects.

The second point is perhaps more interesting.  A few years ago, when EFCA, card-check/neutrality and corporate campaigns seemed ascendant, the rejection of traditional organizing methods was a primary pillar in the SEIU's break from the AFL-CIO and formation of Change to Win.  This endorsement of a renewed commitment to NLRB processes by the SEIU's probable future leader -- obviously now that there is a former SEIU attorney sitting on the Board -- is notable indeed.

Cross-posted at LaborRelationsToday

SEIU's Anna Burger: Push NLRB to Regulate, Congress to Use Reconciliation to Push EFCA

Following Andy Stern's surprising announcement that he would step down as President of SEIU, his protege, Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger and California-based labor leader, Mary Kay Henry seek to succeed him.  This weekend, in a memorandum to the union's International Executive Board, Ms. Burger laid out her vision for the priorities she would have the union pursue.  Listed within the first:

Use smart strategies to push the laborfriendly majority on the NLRB to level the playing field and make it easier to organize through regulation and reconciliation to make quick elections and first contract arbitration the law of the land.

And finally we must face up to the challenge of rebuilding our ability to win traditional NLRB organizing campaigns, as well as exploring new models for organizing the private/private sector where millions of workers, not dependent on shrinking public dollars live on poverty wages in SEIU strongholds.

The first point is likely to raise eyebrows among EFCA-watchers who have recently heard mixed, but generally negative, assessments of the bill's current prospects.

The second point is perhaps more interesting.  A few years ago, when EFCA, card-check/neutrality and corporate campaigns seemed ascendant, the rejection of traditional organizing methods was a primary pillar in the SEIU's break from the AFL-CIO and formation of Change to Win.  This endorsement of a renewed commitment to NLRB processes by the SEIU's probable future leader -- obviously now that there is a former SEIU attorney sitting on the Board -- is notable indeed.

EFCA: Still Not A Dead Issue

ShopFloor.org today highlights a Pittsburgh Tribune piece about the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO convention entitled: "BIg Dem majorities in Congress in doubt as AFL-CIO meets."  NAM's take on the labor leaders' current strategy: "Take what you can get when you can get it."  When it comes to the Employee Free Choice Act, and the rest of organized labor's agenda, NAM notes:

As Congress and the White House seek to appease their political allies in labor before the midterm elections, employers should remain vigilant. Labor’s policy agenda will not necessarily come in the form of legislation. 

We agree that there are now several ways by which labor law reform is likely to be attempted in the near future, as we noted in our inaugural post Friday.  But it seems that EFCA's proponents are not giving up on the legislation either.  Elsewhere in the Trib piece, the author highlights how labor unions are channeling their frustration back into electoral politics for the 2010 cycle:

"We had a couple of conservative Democrats that were the same conservative Democrats that cause problems on health care," said United Steelworkers International President Leo Gerard. He singled out Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Bill Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

They and other conservative Democrats helped give the party its majority, but unions, frustrated with votes against labor priorities, are pulling support from them even if they're in tough re-election contests against Republicans, Gerard said.

Likewise, Politico, the Plumline, the Daily Caller, and MSNBC's Chuck Todd are all reporting that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is working to form a new political party in North Carolina to promote candidates more supportive of labor's agenda.  From Politico:

 

About 100 canvassers have been trying to collect the requisite signatures for the past two weeks to gain ballot access for the new party, which would be called North Carolina First. SEIU spokeswoman Lori Lodes said their primary focus was to officially register the party, but noted that the union was beginning conversations with possible candidates who could run under the party’s banner.

EFCA: Still Not A Dead Issue

ShopFloor.org today highlights a Pittsburgh Tribune piece about the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO convention entitled: "BIg Dem majorities in Congress in doubt as AFL-CIO meets."  NAM's take on the labor leaders' current strategy: "Take what you can get when you can get it."  When it comes to the Employee Free Choice Act, and the rest of organized labor's agenda, NAM notes:

As Congress and the White House seek to appease their political allies in labor before the midterm elections, employers should remain vigilant. Labor’s policy agenda will not necessarily come in the form of legislation. 

We agree that there are now several ways by which labor law reform is likely to be attempted in the near future, as we noted in our inaugural post Friday.  But it seems that EFCA's proponents are not giving up on the legislation either.  Elsewhere in the Trib piece, the author highlights how labor unions are channeling their frustration back into electoral politics for the 2010 cycle:

"We had a couple of conservative Democrats that were the same conservative Democrats that cause problems on health care," said United Steelworkers International President Leo Gerard. He singled out Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Bill Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

They and other conservative Democrats helped give the party its majority, but unions, frustrated with votes against labor priorities, are pulling support from them even if they're in tough re-election contests against Republicans, Gerard said.

Likewise, Politico, the Plumline, the Daily Caller, and MSNBC's Chuck Todd are all reporting that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is working to form a new political party in North Carolina to promote candidates more supportive of labor's agenda.  From Politico:

 

About 100 canvassers have been trying to collect the requisite signatures for the past two weeks to gain ballot access for the new party, which would be called North Carolina First. SEIU spokeswoman Lori Lodes said their primary focus was to officially register the party, but noted that the union was beginning conversations with possible candidates who could run under the party’s banner.

Pelosi: House Will Wait For Senate on Controversial Votes in 2010

Yesterday, Politico suggested that supporters of EFCA might find some renewed sense of optimism as Congress moves beyond the healthcare debate in 2010.  That optimism was equally reflected in AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka's declaration that the labor movement "will pass EFCA."

Today, however, The Hill is reporting on an interesting legislative strategy development regarding the House of Representatives:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has privately told her politically vulnerable Democratic members that they will not vote on controversial bills in 2010 unless the Senate acts first.

After a year of bruising legislative victories that some political analysts believe have done more to jeopardize her majority than to entrench it, Pelosi is shifting gears for the 2010 election.
 

Specifically about the impact on EFCA:

Pelosi’s promise could dim the prospects for other White House priorities as well, including the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — known as “card check” — and the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” prohibition on gays serving openly in the military.
 

“There’s not going to be a ton of stuff legislatively next year either way,” a House leadership aide said. “But on EFCA — even though the House has demonstrated its ability to pass it — and on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Senate is definitely going to have to act first.”
 

The House passed EFCA during the last Congress, but members who voted on that bill were well-aware it had no chance to be signed into law by President George W. Bush.

Now, this isn't a totally new development regarding a "Senate First" approach to EFCA, as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announced the likelihood of letting the Senate lead on the issue back in March 2009.  Still, bloggers and internet news services on all points of the political spectrum have responded.

NewsMax reports that union leaders are frustrated with the Obama administration:

Congress has shown no urgency to act on the bill that would make it easier for unions to organize: the Employee Free Choice Act.

Even after Congress is done with healthcare, there’s no guarantee it will act on the union bill. That’s because moderate Democrats may oppose it, especially with the 2010 elections looming. 

FireDogLake questions the strategy:

It’s true that the House has taken the first bite on a host of bills this year, from education to health care to climate change to financial reform, passing basically a substantial chunk of the Obama agenda, with little to show for it. So the Senate does need to walk the plank every now and again.

But consider the leftover items here – immigration reform, labor law reform (Employee Free Choice Act), gay rights (DOMA and DADT repeal), budgetary issues which include taxes, etc. How broadly do you define a “tough vote”? And what will the House then do while waiting for the Senate to act on all of this?

And some, like Harper's Magazine's Ken Silverstein aren't placing all of the impetus on either the House or Senate:

Even less convincing is the argument that Obama can’t get anything done because of a weak Democratic congress. Fine, it’s a lousy congress, but the president sets the tone and signals his priorities. As I noted yesterday, Obama was a big backer of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) when on the campaign trail (when he needed union votes). He’s barely mentioned it since taking office, and so that central demand of labor has gone nowhere. That’s not all the fault of Congress.

Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) on EFCA: "Too Many Other Things on Our Plate"

 

Roll Call reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Thursday that passing EFCA is no longer a priority for the Senate this year:

Speaking at a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, Reid said the chamber’s schedule is too crowded to consider the Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise known as “card check.”

"We have too many other things on our plate,” Reid said.

But even if the Senate’s schedule was freed up later this year, it is unlikely Reid would bring the bill to the floor short of major changes to the legislation. Republicans have universally panned the bill — as have a few Democrats — making it impossible for Reid to break a Republican filibuster.

The Roll Call piece refers to this Las Vegas Review Journal article covering Reid's address to the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce.  It would seem that Reid's comments confirm recent speculation reagrding the timing of EFCA's treatment in the Senate.  Earlier this week, the AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka indicated the White House said they would not push EFCA until at least after the Senate resolved the current healthcare debate.  Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) subsequently suggested that might not happen before the end of the year.

The passing of Senator Kennedy (D-MA) this week further complicated the timeline for EFCA's consideration as it reduces the Democrat caucus in the Senate to 59 votes under the best of circumstances to pursue cloture on any particular piece of legislation.  While there are some in Massachusetts now pursuing a politically-motivated amendment of state law, the statutes -- amended in 2004 to prevent then Gov. Mitt Romney (R) from filling Sen. Kerry's seat (D-MA) if he won the Presidency -- currently prohibit the Governor from appointing a replacement to the Senate.  A special election must be held between 145 and 160 days after the vacancy -- or not before late January 2010.

It remains to be seen whether the House will proceed with consideration of the bill this year, if for no other reason than to force candidates for office in 2010 to take a position.

House Majority Leader Hoyer (D-MD): Senate First

On the House floor Friday, Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) engaged in a brief dialogue regarding the Employee Free Choice Act.  In response to Rep. Cantor's inquiry regarding the majority's efforts to bring the bill to the floor, Rep. Hoyer responded: 

Now, having said that, we passed this bill. We passed it pretty handily. We passed it in the last Congress, and it’s our expectation that the Senate is going to be dealing with this legislation. They have not yet considered it; and it is my belief that we want to see whether they can pass it. We believe they can. We are going to be interested in what action they take.

So, it would seem that the current strategy is indeed to let the Senate try to pass something first, after which the House would likely be in position to approve it. 

On the issue of EFCA's impact on the secret ballot election, Rep. Hoyer claimed:

We don’t believe this kills the right of the employees to have a free election at all.  Period.

 

We believe in fact the employee has that choice. The employee has the absolute right to respond, ‘‘No, I don’t want to sign your card. Let’s have an election. And I will sign it for that purpose, and that purpose only, to give you the 30 percent you need to get the election.’’

 

I think I’m right on 30 percent....

Unfortunately, that's not at all what the bill says -- that an employee can specify for what purpose his or her card might be submitted to the National Labor Relations Board.  All it says is:

If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative...

 

Senate Democrats Discussing "Modifications" to EFCA

Although the AFL-CIO and supporters in Congress have repeatedly expressed confidence that they will have the votes to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, the AP reports:

Democratic leaders hinted Tuesday that compromise may be needed to get wavering lawmakers on board for a bill to make union organizing easier.

The Democrats insisted they are not losing support, but acknowledged that some changes might be needed.

The comments came as the Employee Free Choice Act was formally introduced in the House and Senate, intensifying the already heated debate between business groups that oppose the measure and labor groups that consider it their top priority.

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, a lead sponsor of the bill, said his colleagues are talking about "certain modifications," but no agreement has been reached.

With the threat of the filibuster firmly in place, EFCA proponents will likely need to consider significant modifications during the legislative process.  In the past, we have noted that key swing vote Senator Arlen Specter's (R-PA) Policy Essay in the Harvard Journal of Legislation identifies several potential elements of alternative approaches to labor law reform.  The MLA White Paper on EFCA also contains an overview of many of these and other similar elements.

Yesterday, Workplace Prof' Blog's Professor Jeffrey Hirsch also linked to an alternative labor law reform bill introduced by Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) -- the National Labor Relations Modernization Act (H.R. 1355).  This law would:

  1. provide for mandatory arbitration following a 120-day mediation period, if after an initial 120 days of bargaining failed to result in an agreement;
  2. increase penalties against employers (similarly to EFCA's proposed changes); and
  3. require an employer to provide equal access to the employees to union organizers once an election is ordered.

Hirsch questions whether this proposal might also provide the basis for some legislative compromise.

Text of the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009

The text of EFCA 2009 as introduced by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) is identical to the version of the bill which failed to pass in 2007 as H.R. 800.  The text of the bill is available here.

And here is the link to the MLA White Paper which reviews the bill's various provisions, includes a critical analysis, outlines its prospects in 2009, and identifies some potential alternative elements of labor law reform.

Update (3/10; 9:00 p.m.) We've attached the text of the National Labor Relations Act with EFCA's proposed amendments in context, available here.

Update (3/11; 10:00 a.m.):  The bill number in the House is H.R. 1409.

Busy Day for EFCA: Senate Hearing, Press Conference, Introduction

As noted last week, at 10:00 a.m. this morning, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions will hold a hearing entitled "Rebuilding Economic Security: Empowering Workers to Restore the Middle Class."   There are two panels of witnesses planned:

Panel I:

Dr. Paula Voos, Chair, Department of Labor Studies and Employment Relations, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ

Wade Henderson, President and CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Washington, DC

Rev. Jim Wallis, President and Executive Director, Sojourners, Washington, DC

Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar, Director, LECG Consulting, Chicago, IL

Panel II:

Deb Kelly, Worker, Anchorage, AK

Kelly Badillo, Worker, Jersey City, NJ

Larry Getts, Worker, Albion, IN

Sharon Harrison, Worker, Lebanon, VA

Sam Stein of the Huffington Post notes: "There will be four witnesses in each session: three from the pro-EFCA side and one from the anti-EFCA side."   Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) will chair the hearing in Senator Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) absence.  (Recently Committee Ranking Member Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY) issued this statement opposing the bill.)

Then, following the hearing, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and Sen. Harkin intend to hold a joint press conference to announce the introduction of the bill.  By most objective accounts, this will mark the beginning of a long, protracted process regarding the bill, and it may not be possible to glean much from details on "Day One."  Still, regular observers will likely be focused on three things:

  1. Is the bill identical to the version that has failed in successive Congresses, most recently as H.R. 800?
  2. Is there majority support evidenced by co-sponsors?  (There were 233 original House co-sponsors and 46 original Senate co-sponsors in the 110th Congress, and Democrats have since expanded their majorities in both houses.)
  3. Will it be introduced in either house first, or in both simultaneously?

Stay tuned here for further updates.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) to introduce EFCA on Tuesday

This weekend we asked:

Now that it seems we're losing more than a half a million jobs a month, one has to wonder whether EFCA's proponents could possibly be serious about re-introducing the bill this coming week.

The answer via Reuters:

A bill making it easier for U.S. workers to unionize will be introduced on Tuesday in the House of Representatives, escalating a battle between congressional Democrats and corporate America.

The bill would let employees form a union if a majority of them in a workplace sign authorization cards.

That would change the present practice in which workers usually vote in elections on unionizing, although the bill would leave elections as an option for employees to choose.

The measure will be filed in the House by California Democratic Rep. George Miller, chairman of the House labor committee, said spokeswoman Rachel Racusen.

ShopFloor.org notes the puffery of a supremely confident "unnamed Democratic official" who told Politico:

“The fact that the bill is being introduced so early in the session is an indication of it being a priority and of confidence in the vote count..."

Of course, EFCA was introduced over a month earlier in the 110th Congress, on February 5, 2007, and failed to pass.  As for the "confidence in the vote count," we've repeatedly noted the obstacle EFCA's sponsors face regarding cloture in the Senate.  Any one of a number of things could preserve a filibuster against the bill:  the ongoing dispute over the Al Franken-Norm Coleman seat in Minnesota; Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) vote; the emergence of reluctant moderate Democrats like Sen. Lincoln (D-AR) or Sen. Landrieu (D-LA) among others, etc.

What may be more interesting to watch will be the "confidence in the vote count" in the House.  Last time around, in 2007, EFCA had 233 co-sponsors.  In November 2008, the Democrats picked up an additional 21 seats, for a total of 257 votes.  Will EFCA's supporters surpass the previous level of majority sponsorship this time?

Apparently, we'll see tomorrow.