Often a source of interest and concern for employers and unions alike, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been particularly top of mind in recent weeks.
- Observers have noted uncertainty over whether the agency will be able to muster a quorum as terms end this year for two of the five members.
- Additionally, business advocates have recently voiced outrage over the NLRB’s action against Boeing Corp.’s decision to locate a major production line in a nonunion plant in right-to-work South Carolina instead of in the unionized operation in Washington State.
But even those issues are now taking a back seat to proposed rule changes that would amend the processes surrounding union elections.
On June 21, the NLRB proposed rules that would, among other things, reduce the time between the filing of an election petition and the election. NLRB Chairman Wilma B. Liebman has issued a statement saying the current rules “seem to build in unnecessary delays, to encourage wasteful litigation, to reflect old-fashioned communication technologies, and to allow haphazard case-processing, by not adopting best practices.”
As union hopes dim that Congress will ever pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), labor advocates see new hope in these proposed rule changes. Meanwhile, the changes have employers worried that the NLRB has found a new way to ease unions into workplaces despite the failure of the legislation aimed at this goal.
To give stakeholders on both sides of the union debate a forum to comment on the proposed changes, the NLRB scheduled a two-day public hearing, which took place yesterday (July 18) and today (July 19).
In remarks during today’s public meeting, Francis T. “Tom” Coleman, an attorney representing the Printing Industries of America, focused on how small business would be affected. He complained that union organizers like to surprise employers and that this tactic “will be an even more effective strategy under the new rules.”
C. Stephen Jones, Jr., a human resources director at a concrete company in North Carolina, echoed that concern. He said the NLRB has “no compelling data that current time frames aren’t working.” When problems do occur because of unfair labor practices caused by employers, he said current sanctions are enough of a remedy. He advised the Board to “deal with the bad apples; don’t replace the whole orchard.”
Other commenters applauded the proposed changes as a necessary first step to right wrongs caused by election delays. Kimberly Freeman Brown, representing the American Rights at Work organization, said the current process rewards unscrupulous employers by tolerating tactics that stall elections.
Elizabeth Bunn of the AFL-CIO believes the current system is flawed and that employers are able to exercise too much control over the timing of elections. She argued that this control allows employers to intimidate workers through mandatory meetings and threats to close plants.
Even the NLRB itself is divided on the efficacy of the proposed rules. When the amendments were first announced, Board member Brian E. Hayes filed a dissent that voiced some of the complaints employers are raising. “Parts of what my colleagues propose seem reasonable enough,” he wrote. “On the other hand, the whole of proposed reform is much, much more than the sum of its parts and out of all proportion to specific problems with the Board’s current representation case handling procedures.”
Hayes went on to question whether the proposed revisions address the root cause of election delays. “What is certain,” he wrote, “is that the proposed rules will (1) substantially shorten the time between the filing of the petition and the election date, and (2) substantially limit the opportunity for full evidentiary hearing or Board review on contested issues involving, among other things, appropriate unit, voter eligibility, and election misconduct.”
Though the public hearings have ended, comments on the proposed rules may still be submitted through August 22 at www.regulations.gov.
Mastering HR Report: Labor and Organizing