NLRB

  • December 27, 2011
    Video Interview

    by Jonathan Arogeti

    A new rule adopted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will simplify elections to form unions and delay the appeals process until after those elections. The board said the changes are slated to take effect on April 30, 2012, The Blog of Legal Times reports.

    “This rule is about giving all employees who have petitioned for an election the right to vote in a timely manner and without the impediment of needless litigation,” said NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce.

    These changes are part of a more comprehensive rules reform proposal put forth by the board in July. In a release announcing the changes, the NLRB said it would hold for further review the most debate-generating proposals, but that they would push forward with these “less controversial” ones.

    AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (pictured) hailed the move, saying, “It's good news that the NLRB has taken this modest but important step to help ensure that workers who want to vote to form a union at their workplace get a fair opportunity to do so.” He warned, though, “Many more improvements are needed to protect workers' rights. We hope the Board will quickly move to adopt the rest of its proposed reforms to modernize and streamline the election process.”

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce immediately moved to counter the rule change, filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    Meanwhile, similar future decisions by the NLRB are in jeopardy, as the Board is slated to lose its necessary quorum at the end of the month. Currently, only three of the five seats are filled; that number will go down to two when Craig Becker’s recess appointment expires Dec. 31. The Supreme Court held last year in New Process Steel v. NLRB that the NLRB could not legally operate with less than three members, and voided more than 400 NLRB rulings made by only two members. 

     Victor Williams, a professor at the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, writes in Jurist that the Republican obstruction of two pending confirmations to the board amounts to “nullification” and urges president Obama to use his power make recess appointments. Williams argues that senators’ attempt to block recess appointments by holding sessions every three days during the holiday break is without legal authority.

    He writes:

  • September 5, 2011
    Guest Post

    by Marion G. Crain, the Wiley B. Rutledge Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Work & Social Capital, at the Washington University School of Law


    Labor Day celebrates the historical contributions of the American labor movement to the lives of millions of working people. Today, however,unions are under siege. In the public sector, governors seeking to slash budgets are deauthorizing state labor laws that govern the organizing and bargaining rights of state employees. In the private sector, both the federal legislation that supports union action and the administrative body that enforces the law (the National Labor Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Board, respectively) are under attack. Union density is on a dramatic downswing. Are unions passé?

    Unions formed to challenge the dramatic wealth inequality between business owners and workers that characterized the nineteenth century social condition.  Most working families -- children, as well as adults -- labored under oppressive and dangerous conditions: seven days and sixty-plus hours per week, for pennies an hour, in workplaces with overtly dangerous conditions (the open flames in coal mines, for example, led to frequent explosions that maimed and killed many miners). Unions fought to change these conditions: to raise wages, to reduce hours, to enhance worker safety on the job. As they matured, unions partnered with the civil rights movement to battle entrenched racial segregation and discrimination in employment. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, a staunch union advocate, espoused a vision of racial equality that was premised on a call for economic justice. Indeed, King’s assassination occurred while he was in Memphis supporting a sanitation workers’ strike.

    Today, an array of statutes protects the vast majority of workers against such abuses.  Unions played a key role in obtaining such protections, and in defending them against political challengers. They raised workers’ expectations and encouraged them to demand to be treated with dignity, lobbied for legislation that would improve the standard of living for all workers, and litigate on behalf of workers for the most worker friendly interpretations of the law. The Fair Labor Standards Act (establishing a minimum wage and the right to overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week), the Occupational Safety and Health Act (establishing standards for safe workplaces), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin and religion), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (offering job protection for unpaid medical and family-care-related leave) are among the many legislative achievements that would not exist without the advocacy of labor unions. 

    As valuable as it may be, the individual rights model outlined above leaves economic issues like living wages, job security, health insurance and pension benefits to individual negotiation. But individual workers are relatively powerless to negotiate with corporate employers who hold the purse-strings to desperately needed jobs, and many workers willingly sacrifice anything to get and keep a job. Unions, however, are able to capitalize on the collective strength of the group to negotiate collective bargaining agreements that guarantee job security and establishbenefit packages that include health insurance, pension coverage, vacation pay, and paid family leave. Once obtained, these important benefits are often extended across entire industries or sectors by employers competing to attract the best workers. Further, most workers lack the knowledge of their legal rights and the resources to challenge violations of rights guaranteed in individual rights statutes. Unions thus play an important role as watchdogs for workers’ rights, and are the most effective vehicle for extending those rights beyond the minimum floor prescribed by employment legislation.

    Thus, labor unions are widely credited with creating and sustaining a strong middle class in America. Autoworkers, steelworkers, coalminers, nurses, teachers, and many others enjoy a middle-class standard of living because of their collectively-bargained wage and benefit packages. 

  • August 30, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    As conservative lawmakers and right-wing activists keep churning out attacks against the efforts of the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) to enforce federal labor law, The New York Times talked with outgoing chairwoman Wilma Liebman about the origins of some of the Right’s vitriol.

    Liebman (pictured) tells the newspaper that attacks against the Board, which is charged with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), tend to be cyclical – depending on which political party is in power (the NLRB is an independent federal agency, but the president appoints members to the five-member board). She adds, however, that she believes the NLRA, enacted during the New Deal has never been fully accepted by many people. The NLRA, as Liebman points out, was intended to ensure that workers have the right to engage in collective bargaining and other actions to protect their rights against increasingly powerful corporations. Not surprisingly, the article includes comments from U.S. Chamber of Commerce deriding actions by the Board to safeguard workers’ rights. Recently the NLRB drew consternation from business groups when it ordered private employers to post information about workers’ rights to bargain collectively and form unions.

    Liebman defends collective bargaining as a major reason for the creation of the nation’s middle class, and as a tool to strengthen the economy.

    “If you increase workers’ purchasing power, that can create a stronger, more substantial economy,” she said.

  • August 24, 2011
    Guest Post

    By Jeffrey M. Hirsch, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law. This is a cross-post from Workplace Prof Blog.


    Since the initial uproar over the Boeing complaint, I've been sitting back and waiting for the hearing and ALJ recommended decision stage to wrap up. But a recent column by the NY Times' Joe Nocera has prompted me to post something yet again. When a columnist whose most recent notoriety was calling Tea Partiers "terrorists" writes a column that looks like it was written by Boeing, I just can't resist. I won't comment on his positive descriptions of Boeing, which many in the labor field might take issue with, but instead focus on his erroneous description of the case and the NLRB.

    Nocera starts by claiming that he is "mildly obsessed" over the issue. I'd suggest that he make the obsession stronger, because it's apparent that he hasn't taken the time to read the complaint, read the NLRB's statements on the complaint, talk to anyone who knows the law, or even spent five minutes on the NLRB website to determine its basic structure and function.

    Nocera at least said there was a "complaint" at issue rather than a decision, although he doesn't seem to understand the difference between the NLRB and the NLRB's General Counsel. Indeed, he states that most of the Board's "top executives" were nominated by Obama, without recognizing that the GC is the only political appointee who has looked at this case.

    Nocera also messes up the GC's proposed order. The GC did not say that all the South Carolina jobs have to be moved back to Washington. As the NLRB's press release clearly stated: "To remedy the alleged unfair labor practices, the Acting General Counsel seeks an order that would require Boeing to maintain the second production line in Washington state. The complaint does not seek closure of the South Carolina facility, nor does it prohibit Boeing from assembling planes there." That may seem like splitting hairs given the economics involved, but Nocera and others are wrong to say that the NLRB is trying to take jobs away from a certain area. If Boeing wants to keep future work in SC, it can. Besides, the reality is that if Boeing were to lose, the likely result would be to pay the Washington workers backpay (and maybe some frontpay) in lieu of moving the work.

  • August 15, 2011

    by Nicole Flatow

    Earlier this month, a group of 34 legal and labor policy experts urged Rep. Darrell Issa not to intervene any further in an ongoing legal proceeding on whether Boeing violated federal labor law, warning that subpoenaing documents from an active case would threaten the independence of the National Labor Relations Board.

    “We believe that this document request, combined with recent statements noting the desire to possibly ‘eliminate the NLRB,’  may well cross the line delineated by the courts,” they cautioned in a letter.

    But Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee went forward with a sweeping subpoena anyway, requiring the NLRB to submit all documents related to the Boeing case by this Friday.

    Now, several House Democrats have sent their own letter accusing Issa of overstepping his bounds to serve corporate interests, and calling on him to drop the subpoena, The Huffington Post reports.