WFI Sends Letter to Following Congressmen:
Senator Mike Enzi Senator Johnny Isakson Representative John Kline Representative Phil Roe
Representative Phil Gingrey
Dear Senators Enzi and Isakson and Representatives Kline, Roe and Gingrey,
The Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI) is an organization devoted to educating workers, their employers and Americans in general on important issues affecting the workplace.
We write to commend you for introducing in the U.S. Senate, S.J. Res. 36 and in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.J. Res. 103, a joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act that will nullify the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) recent rule amending its election procedures.
The rule is fundamentally at odds with the principles of workplace democracy. It limits the ability of employers, particularly small employers, to secure legal counsel and express their views on unionization before a Board election. In sum, it deprives employees of their right to hear all views and make an informed choice. The rule accomplishes this result by adopting a process that will unfairly constrain employers from exercising their right under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act) to raise legitimate issues and contest the results of an election even when, for example, those results may not reflect the free and un-coerced choice of the employees.
The Evolution Of The Election Rule
In June 2011, without giving a sound rationale for doing so, the NLRB proposed a rule that would make radical changes in the Board’s election law, processes and procedures. The proposal was so controversial that it received more than 65,000 comments in the abbreviated period the Board allowed for them. Most of the comments were in opposition to the principal changes being proposed. Due to the Board’s obligation to consider all relevant matter presented, there was insufficient time for it to promulgate the proposal as a final rule before NLRB member Craig Becker’s term ended. Obviously anxious to push through an election rule that would benefit labor unions, however, the two-member Board majority promulgated a final rule (the “Election Rule”) without the vote of the Board’s third member and one that was pared back somewhat from what the NLRB had originally proposed.
The Election Rule nevertheless unfairly limits employer free speech by significantly cutting the amount of time for NLRB elections. The Election Rule accomplishes this result – or something near to it – by moving final Board resolution of pre-election issues (issues such as the Board’s jurisdiction, the appropriateness of the bargaining unit and the eligibility of voters) to after the election. By doing so, it stacks the deck in favor of unionization because employers will be pressured into accepting the results of elections. According to existing Board law, an employer’s duty to bargain attaches when the election results are announced. Consequently, if an employer contests the election and continues normal business operations, it does so at its peril. If the employer loses it can be required to return the workplace to the conditions that existed when the results of the election were confirmed by the Board.
While the Election Rule already gives an unfair advantage to labor bosses, it is only the beginning. The Board’s chairman recently announced that the newly-constituted NLRB will “keep its eye on the prize” and begin considering adopting the remaining provisions of the Board’s original Election Rule each of which is highly controversial. For example, one provision of the original proposed rule required employers to disclose the personal e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of unit employees for use by union organizers. Another provision required that any NLRB hearing be held within seven days and transformed the hearing from a collaborative one into an adversarial one. Requiring a hearing within seven days and making it adversarial is patently unfair to the nation’s employers who are unfamiliar with the Board, its rules and regulations.
Unfortunately, the Election Rule is only one element, albeit an important one, of the Obama labor board’s extremely partisan agenda. Other actions the NLRB has taken include: a decision that facilitates union access to worksites; a decision that allows the formation of “micro-unions” which threaten to balkanize the workplace; and a rule that requires nearly every employer in the country to post a one-sided notice that advises employees of their right to unionize, but not their right to oppose unionization.
Conclusion
By passing S.J. Res. 36 and H.J. Res. 103 the Congress will send a needed message to the nation’s discouraged employers that it does not intend to watch idly as a partisan labor board enacts rules and issues decisions that are inconsistent with employers’ legitimate interests and will harm the economy. Passage will also send an encouraging message to the nation’s employees that Congress intends to protect them from unelected bureaucrats who put the interests of labor bosses above theirs and the principles of workplace democracy.
WFI urges all Members of Congress who value workforce fairness to support this resolution.
This entry was posted in Big Labor Bailout, Big Labor Bosses, Campaigns & Elections, Congress, NLRB, Politics, WFI Letters and tagged “Election” Rule, Craig Becker, National Labor Relations Act, NLRB, union elections. Bookmark the permalink.