The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is moving ahead with a plan to allow for quicker elections on union representation even as Congress considers legislation aimed at thwarting the Board’s proposed rule.
The NLRB met on November 30 to decide on a resolution from Board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce on whether to adopt some of the amendments to its election procedures that were proposed last summer. The two Democratic members of the Board, Pearce and Craig Becker, voted in favor of the resolution, and the Republican member, Brian Hayes, voted against it.
The vote means that a final rule will be drafted under the outline of the resolution. A subsequent vote must be taken for the rule to take effect.
The NLRB, which is supposed to have five members, has been down to three since August, and Becker’s recess appointment is to expire at the end of December. Nominations for the open seats have been held up in the Senate. Employer groups and other critics of the rules change have said the November 30 vote was timed to ensure passage before the Board loses its quorum at the end of the year.
During the meeting, Pearce said his resolution contains amendments aimed at modernizing the election process and reducing unnecessary litigation in election cases before the NLRB. Critics, however, say the changes would deprive employers of the time they need to respond to union organization efforts.
“Draconian Effort” Decried
Also on November 30, the U.S. House of Representatives debated the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act (H.R. 3094), which is a response to the NLRB’s rule change proposal. Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican, told the House that the proposed rule change “largely prohibits employers from raising additional legal concerns, denies answers to questions that can influence the vote, and turns over to union leaders even more personal employee information,” according to a transcript of his remarks.
“Let’s get something straight: The Board’s scheme isn’t about modernizing the election process. This is a draconian effort to stifle employer speech and ambush workers with a union election,” Kline said.
The House voted 235-188 in favor of the legislation.
Why Hayes Didn’t Resign
During the NLRB meeting on November 30, Hayes spoke not only against the proposed rules change but also against the process the chairman chose to use. He said that changing a rule with just two votes goes against tradition and harms the Board’s credibility.
Hayes also said he considered resigning over the issue, an action that would have left the NLRB without a quorum and unable to act. He said he rejected that option in part because it’s “not in my nature to be obstructionist.” Also, resignation wouldn’t necessarily have mooted the issue, he said.
“Resignation would cause the very same harm and collateral damage to the reputation of this agency and to the interest of its constituents as would the issuance of a controversial rule without three affirmative votes,” Hayes said.
Learn more about labor relations and unions in the Mastering HR Report: Labor and Organizing
AM I missing something here, or does it seem that the government is, once again trying to take control of private industry through the back door ? Some of the workers that will be voting on union “takeovers” in the industries don’t even know what they’re voting for.
I am A former union member and there was a time when the union was necessary to keep the large industry honest. But now, when we look back at the last 20 years, we we stifleed growth and a group that has done as much harm as good.
Check with some of the autoworkers that no longer have jobs, go to Detroit, Mi. and see a once lively and viable city now broke and waning daily. When the unions force the industry to litteraly shut down, do the union fatcats lose their jobs too. When your walking the picket lines, and the union reps tell you to vote against a reasonable contract, do they suffer the same consequence as the “line employee” ? I think not! What happened to common sense? The only thing that isn’t common !