The five-member National Labor Relations Board 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.
• Balanced policies that reflect the NLRB’s original mission, to fairly interpret and enforce federal labor law.
• Regulatory and legislative efforts that preserve 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.
• Legal and legislative efforts to restore the joint employer standard that had been in place for more than 30 years under the NLRA.
• The NLRB’s 2014 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.
• The NLRB’s decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, which expands joint employer liability under the NLRA.
• Any legislative efforts by the NLRB to overturn balanced precedent or implement anti-employer policies and rulemakings.
Under the Obama administration, the NLRB issued controversial, anti-business rulemakings seeking to promote union organizing in the construction industry and elsewhere at the expense of employers and employees.
Most notably, in 2014, the NLRB finalized its controversial ambush election rule, also known as Representation-Case Procedures, which significantly changes the union representation election process by reducing the amount of time between when a union files a representation petition and an election take place. Under the Trump administration, the NLRB issued a request for information in 2017, seeking public comment on whether the 2014 Election Rule should be kept as is, modified or rescinded entirely. ABC’s position is that the board should rescind the rule and return to the election procedures that were in effect and working well prior to the new rule’s adoption. ABC members have found the new rule’s requirements to be unduly burdensome for employers, unduly intrusive into employee privacy and unduly infringing on the rights of employers and employees to a fair pre-election process.
In addition, under the Obama administration, the NLRB uprooted more than 30 years of precedent and issued a decision in the Browning-Ferris Industries of California case that greatly expanded joint employer liability under the NLRA to situations where a company has “indirect” control and “unexercised potential” control over the essential terms and conditions of employment of another company’s employees. The BFI decision imposes unnecessary barriers to and burdens on contractor and subcontractor relationships throughout the construction industry. Under the Trump administration in 2018, the NLRB published a proposed rule that would establish an updated standard for determining joint-employer liability under the NLRA. The outcome of this rulemaking is to place in doubt the Obama-era joint employer standard, which is of considerable importance to the construction industry.