October 2011
The House of Representatives has recently pushed forward some pieces of legislation to limit the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) discretion and authority. Both bills appear to have been introduced in reaction to recent actions taken by the NLRB, which have been viewed by many employers, business groups and Republicans as attacks on businesses in favor of promoting unions. Opposition from Democrats and unions has been fierce, but to-date these bills have progressed unencumbered in the House.
The first bill, the "Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act," seeks to reverse the NLRB's recently issued complaint against Boeing Company. In the Boeing decision, the NLRB found that Boeing violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by moving its new Dreamliner jet aircraft production from its unionized Washington state plant to its new non-union plant in South Carolina. The NLRB found that Boeing violated the NLRA because the company purportedly made the move to South Carolina to retaliate against the Washington workers for previous union activities/striking. The company countered that the economics of its production necessitated consistency of operations that were not subject to interruptions (i.e. strikes). The NLRB disagreed and has sought to have the company relocate the production lines for the Dreamliner from South Carolina to Washington despite the company building its new billion dollar plant in South Carolina.
The proposition that a billion dollar decision could be altered by the NLRB because it believes the company sought to punish some workers for prior strikes is troubling and an aggressive move by the agency. Companies and business groups have expressed fear that the NLRB prevailing in this matter could lead to further interference by the agency; and that to avoid such interference, companies will instead send the work to different countries, rather than different states. Enter the House of Representatives and the "Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act." The bill would amend unions' sacred cow - the NLRA - by restricting the NLRB from exerting the power to order a company to close, relocate or transfer employment as a remedial measure for a company's unfair labor practice. In sum, the change would take the teeth out of the NLRB's ability to police unfair labor practices where the company is found to have unlawfully transferred production/work from a union to a non-union facility.
The bill is currently on its way to the full House, having made its way out of committee. Expect this bill to be an increasingly visible topic in the media as it becomes part of the Republican agenda given the nature of the fight and the current state of polemic politics. The conclusion of this legislation has primary relevance for employers who have unions and facilities in multiple states. If the NLRB has its way, employers in such situations might find their ability to invest in and hire workers at non-union facilities, who would perform work similar to that being performed by the company's union workers, subject to increased scrutiny and second-guessing. Should Boeing lose this and the legislation not pass, unions will certainly feel emboldened and employers in such circumstances should expect unfair labor practice charges to be filed over all matters of business decisions that favor the non-union facility over the union facility.
Questions? Please contact a WS attorney in any of our offices.
