The five-member National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is tasked with interpreting and enforcing the National Labor Relations Act. The agency is supposed to serve as a neutral arbiter of federal labor law, but under the current administration, it has promoted the narrow policy goals of the politically powerful unions.
The NLRB recently finalized its controversial “ambush” elections rule. The rule significantly changes the union election process by reducing the amount of time between when a union files a representation petition and accelerates an election from a current median of 38 days to as few as 10 to 14 days. The rule also seeks to “streamline” the process by deferring or eliminating long-held employer rights. In addition, the rule requires employers to hand over their employees’ names, home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, work locations, shifts and job classifications to union organizers.
The NLRB “ambush” elections final rule will work hand-in-glove with the U.S. Department of Labor’s pending “persuader” rule, which ABC also opposes. Together, these two rules could achieve a primary objective of the deceptively named Employee Free Choice Act by forcing labor neutrality on employers.
If left unchecked, NLRB actions will further jeopardize economic recovery and profoundly impact millions of American employers and their employees. It is imperative that Congress works to restore much-needed balance to the workplace.
- Balanced policies that reflect to the NLRB’s original mission to fairly interpret and enforce federal labor law.
- Legislation that preserves longstanding union election procedures by safeguarding the right of workers to make informed decisions about union representation, ensuring the ability of employers to communicate with their employees, and protecting the privacy of workers and their families.
- The NLRB’s final rule that implements “ambush” style union representation elections. Such policies unfairly obstruct and silence employers while violating workers’ privacy and depriving them of valuable information.
- Any efforts by the NLRB to redefine who qualifies as a “joint employer” under the NLRA.
- Any efforts by the NLRB to overturn balanced precedent or implement anti-employer policies and rulemakings.