Eye on the NLRB - American Rights at Work

The NLRB: Policing Repeat Offenders with a Water Pistol

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:42:37 +0100

As a mother I’ve learned that regardless of his repeated assurances, my toddler will only stop harassing his little brother when there are real consequences to his misbehavior (i.e., no more train video). Yet when the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) charged Consolidated Biscuit with illegally harassing its union supporters–despite the company’s pledge to stop in two previous settlements—the agency didn’t provide any real consequences.

Rather than pursuing an injunction and contempt-of-court charges against the company to prevent further violations, they decided to negotiate yet another settlement. This milquetoast response to a habitual unionbuster illustrates why we need the Employee Free Choice Act, which would increase penalties for unlawful employers, and require the use of injunctions to curb employers’ bad behavior when there’s reasonable cause to believe that someone’s rights have been violated.

NLRB In Legal Limbo, Swift Action by Senate Needed

Mon, 04 May 2009 16:44:25 +0100

Two contradicting court decisions issued last week leave the National Labor Relations Board in legal limbo.� For the past 16 months, Wilma Liebman and Peter Schaumber have jointly issued 400 decisions, preventing a major backlog of cases while the Board was down by three members.� Yet the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington just held that it was invalid for them to issue two-member decisions, while a federal appellate court in Chicago upheld the validity of their decisions.� It will likely take a Supreme Court decision to clear up the legal matter.

It is all the more imperative now that the Senate swiftly confirm President Obama’s nominees for two vacant Board seats. If the Board is forced to re-examine all of those cases when another member is appointed, it must do so quickly in order to minimize the damage done to workers.� Behind each of those cases are real people who are waiting for their union to be recognized, waiting for their employer to come to the bargaining table, and waiting to collect backpay for a wrongful termination.

New Labor Board Appointees Signal Change Is Coming

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:34:18 +0100

The National Labor Relations Board may once again be a worker-friendly agency which actually fulfills its mission to promote democracy in the workplace.�

President Obama has announced that he is appointing Craig Becker and Mark Pearce to fill two open vacancies on the Labor Board.� Both men have a history of advocating on behalf of workers and for reforming labor law through direct legal work and in academic posts.� If confirmed, they will join Chair Wilma Liebman and Member Schaumber, with one vacancy remaining.

For more info, check out the American Prospect.

The Weakest Federal Employment Law

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:05:50 +0100

If I were a scurrilous lawyer advising a new employer on federal employment laws, I would tell them not to worry about violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). When an employer violates any of the three major federal employment laws covering minimum wage, discrimination, or safety, they must at least pay fines or damages. Yet there are no penalties assessed on employers who commit unfair labor practices under the NLRA. Check out this new chart released by American Rights at Work, which illustrates just how poorly the costs of violating labor law compare with the costs of violating other employment laws:

�

One Quarter of the Workforce Without the Right to Organize

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:52:46 +0100

According to new numbers released by American Rights at Work, 33.5 million people—24% of the workforce—have no legally-protected right to form a union. This is an embarrassing number for an advanced democracy like ours. As a Human Rights Watch report noted, large exclusions of workers from the protections of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) “run counter to international human rights standards compelling broad protection of workers' freedom of association.”

Why are so many workers without the right to organize? The NLRA excludes several classes of workers, including public employees, agricultural workers, and independent contractors, and many states have failed to pass laws extending coverage to these employees. Additionally, decisions by the Bush Labor Board have excluded employees with minimal supervisory duties, disabled janitors, graduate student assistants, newspaper carriers, and other categories of workers from the law’s protections. And employers are increasingly misclassifying their employees as independent contractors, denying them the right to form unions and gain other employment law protections.

Workers Left Out of NLRB Settlement Process

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:03:25 +0100

A friendly reminder to staff of the National Labor Relations Board: your agency exists to protect the interests of workers—not the employers who break the law. I’m compelled to bring this up because of the recent actions taken by a regional NLRB office to settle a complaint against an employer without any input from the nurses who brought the charges.

In May of this year, nurses at Legacy Hospital in Portland, OR, filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB, alleging their employer illegally barred nurses from discussing the union in all areas of the worksite, and called in security to escort nurses off the property for engaging in union activity. On September 30, the NLRB issued a complaint charging the company with illegally suppressing union activity, and scheduled a hearing for October.*

Yet without consulting with the nurses, the NLRB canceled the hearing and settled the charges with the hospital, which simply agreed to post a notice describing the nurses’ rights under the law. None of the nurses’ concerns were addressed.

Anti-Union Firings Left Unanswered by the NLRB

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:00:00 +0100

When a worker is fired for union activity, the impact of that firing extends not only to the individual worker, but to her coworkers that receive the anti-union message from the employer.� According to new research by American Rights at Work, for every worker� fired, 395 coworkers receive the message: support the union and get the pink slip. Employers are very effectively chilling union activity with few consequences.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) only gets a small percentage of fired workers back on the job—leaving the employer’s anti-union message to go unanswered.� Between 1999 and 2007, only 11 percent of the 86,000 workers that filed charges alleging they were illegally fired for union activity received an NLRB offer of reinstatement. Thirty-five percent accepted some form of settlement, rather than waiting for the lengthy NLRB process to get their jobs back.

Union Organizers Assaulted, NLRB Doesn't Bother Pursuing the Case

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:20:06 +0100

If you’re attacked while peacefully protesting, you’d expect to have someone to turn to for justice. If you’re attacked while picketing outside a workplace, it’s natural to turn to the National Labor Relations Board—the agency charged with protecting workers’ freedom of association. Yet when five union organizers in Los Angeles filed charges with the NLRB alleging they were brutally attacked by employees with 2x4s sent by Herix and Golden Gate Steel, building contractors they were picketing, the NLRB Regional Director actually dismissed the charges.

According to the lawyer representing the union organizers, Ellyn Moscowitz, the NLRB just informed her they decided not to pursue the case since it wasn’t clear who started the violence. Moscowitz noted, however, that the only witness claiming the organizers started the violence is the owner of the contracting companies that were picketed for alleged safety violations.

Undaunted by the NLRB’s decision, the organizers are continuing to pursue justice. They recently filed a civil suit with the Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging the companies unlawfully assaulted them because of their protected involvement in a labor dispute. Luckily, these organizers can seek protections from a state law when the federal government has left them out in the cold.

If the NLRB has a good defense for dismissing this case without even pursuing a complaint and administrative law judge trial, I’d be happy to hear it.

Half a Million and Counting

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:54:30 +0100

The anti-union Employee Freedom Action Committee is spending millions to run advertisements depicting majority sign-up as a new, off-the-wall, and anti-democratic process that, if the Employee Free Choice Act passes, will allow unions to intimidate employees into joining.

Yet new research by American Rights at Work reveals that with little fanfare, more than half a million Americans have already formed unions through majority sign-up since 2003. In fact, majority sign-up is now more commonly used than the National Labor Relations Board election process—no surprise given that research has found it to be less coercive.

Out of Control: Employer Misconduct During Organizing

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:49:42 +0100

It’s hard to imagine that our American democracy would survive if in nearly half of political elections held, there were allegations of illegal coercion and intimidation, and if four in 10 elections never took place because of such intimidation. Yet this is the situation facing workers attempting to form unions through National Labor Relations Board elections, according to new statistics released by American Rights at Work.

Debt Consolidators, Unite!

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:17:17 +0100

We hear of janitors, nurses, and auto workers collectively fighting to improve their working conditions, but the financial sector isn’t known as a hotbed of organizing activity. Yet a recent case of debt consolidator solidarity should inspire others in this rapidly changing industry. Last week, the National Labor Relations Board charged Debt Settlement USA with illegally firing four debt consultants when they stood up to fight a proposed wage cut, and for illegally barring employees from discussing pay issues with each other.

Workers: 11, Goya: 0, Yet Goya Is Still Winning

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:44:05 +0100

Last week, the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision against Goya Foods in Miami, ordering the company to cease making unilateral changes to its employees’ benefit plans without bargaining with its workers’ union over the changes.� According to Bruce Raynor, President of UNITE HERE, which represents these workers, this decision was the eleventh won by the workers against Goya Foods.�

Yet in a recent speech before the American Sociological Association, Raynor noted that these legal victories mean little as the company still refused to sit down and bargain with the union.

As I recently pointed out, the Goya workers voted for union representation in 1998, yet 10 years of decisions by the circuit courts and the NLRB couldn’t bring Goya to the bargaining table. Clearly we need an overhaul of our labor law to ensure that workers who vote for a union actually secure a contract with their employers. The Employee Free Choice Act holds that promise for workers.

Blue Man's Unionbusting Betrays its Artistic Message

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:55:25 +0100

Sixteen years ago, I had the pleasure of seeing Blue Man Group’s original show in New York City.� I reveled in the drumming, marshmallow tossing, and sense of community the artists encouraged in the midst of the information overload of our time.� One longtime Blue Man summed up the show’s message in an interview with the Victoria Times Colonist in 2007:

We live in this technology age which connects us so amazingly... and yet, it's sort of made us more alone than we've ever been.

But Blue Man’s artistic vision for more personal connection is belied by its recent actions repressing its employees’ efforts to come together for a stronger voice at work.�

According to a recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board, the Blue Man Group’s company illegally barred its Las Vegas employees from freely discussing their working conditions, discriminated against a union supporter, and refused to recognize and bargain with the employees’ union—more than two years after they voted for representation.� These are typical violations of the law by anti-union American employers…but for Blue Man?� Looks like it’s just The Man now—more concerned with making money than respecting its employees’ rights.

Bush Administration Should Follow Bush's Own Standard for Free Elections

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:57:43 +0100

You can’t have free elections if a candidate is not allowed to campaign freely and his supporters aren’t allowed to campaign without fear of intimidation.

Those were the wise words of President Bush, commenting on the recent sham election in Zimbabwe.� Yet here at home, Bush finds the National Labor Relations Board election process to be fair and democratic, despite the fact that it bears no resemblance to what we would consider fair elections. Workers have little freedom to campaign for a union in the workplace, and employer intimidation is pervasive.

An NLRB administrative law judge recently ruled that a fair election could still occur where an employer had illegally intimidated its workers out of organizing.� In 2006, a small group of car dealership employees in San Jose, CA, lost the benefits of union representation when their company changed ownership.� The new company forced them to withdraw their union membership in order to continue working there, and committed numerous illegal tactics to prevent the workers from forming a union.

A Gift to Wal-Mart from the NLRB

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:23:32 +0100

The National Labor Relations Board just found Wal-Mart guilty of illegally firing a union supporter, bribing employees, and discriminatorily refusing to protect union supporters from the harassment of their anti-union coworker, all in an effort to prevent workers from forming a union at its Kingman, AZ, store.

How is this decision a gift to Wal-Mart?� Because it was issued eight years after the organizing effort began—eight years after it could have had any impact on the union effort.� Thus Wal-Mart breaks the law, successfully squashes the union effort, benefits from the slow case-handling procedures at the NLRB, and merely has to pony up a little backpay and interest to the employee it fired.� It’s no wonder this country’s largest private employer has managed to stay entirely union-free.

Remedy a Drop in the Cup of Starbucks' Fortune

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:26:34 +0100

A Starbucks employee in Grand Rapids, Mich., is claiming he was fired last week for trying to form a union.� This allegation follows on the heels of a recent National Labor Relations Board settlement that ordered the company to reinstate two New York City workers it illegally fired for organizing, and to stop spying on employees, withholding raises, prohibiting workers from wearing union buttons, and other illegal tactics used to thwart their union effort.

Why, after this settlement, would Starbucks potentially break the law again?� Could it be that the company only had to pay paltry sum of $1,925 to the two fired New York City workers—with no penalties and no impact on the company’s bottom line?

Nurses, Wear Your Union Buttons Proudly

Thu, 22 May 2008 10:35:24 +0100

Some good news for hard-working nurses:� the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals just struck down a National Labor Relations Board ruling that allowed a hospital to ban nurses from wearing their “RNs Demand Safe Staffing” buttons during collective bargaining.� The Republican majority of the NLRB had condoned yet another employer policy aimed at muzzling their employees’ freedom of association, and once again, a circuit court found they were out of line.

Breaking: Battista Now Busting Unions For Profit

Mon, 05 May 2008 14:03:59 +0100

For years I've been writing that Robert Battista, former chair of the National Labor Relations Board, has been doing the bidding of anti-union employers by dismantling protections for workers under the law.� Apparently, he's now going to be doing the bidding of anti-union employers and making a lot more money at notorious unionbusting firm Littler Mendelson (see a sample of their unionbusting strategies: Littler Mendelson’s Dos & Don’ts).

Battista asked Bush to withdraw his nomination as Labor Board chair, which was going nowhere, and joined the firm that John Logan of the London School of Economics called one of the "nation’s first law firms to conduct aggressive union avoidance campaigns."

Now Battista can make money telling employers how to exploit the law he helped to weaken in order to prevent their workers from organizing.

Unionbusting 2.0

Mon, 05 May 2008 13:58:16 +0100

As more jobs stray from the traditional 9 to 5 office scenario, employee discussions over lunch in the break room are becoming a thing of the past.� Email has in many ways filled that gap, enabling employees to communicate about issues of common interest.�

But at Uloop, a social networking site aimed at college students, workers were fired 20 minutes after they first discussed forming a union on the company’s online message boards.�

The employees filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board, claiming that their termination was illegal because their communication was protected by labor law.� This charge will likely be a test of the precedent-setting Register-Guard case, where the Labor Board denied protections for employees who email each other about union-related issues, failing to recognize technological advancements in workplace communication.��

When Voting for a Union Is Only the Start of the Struggle

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:03:13 +0100

Here’s a tale told far too often: workers have come together to vote for a union, but don’t have a contract in their workplace.� Why?� Their employer unlawfully refuses to bargain with them and the National Labor Relations Board fails to enforce our weak labor law.�

Ten years after Goya Foods employees in Miami voted for a union, a circuit court judge ordered the company to finally negotiate a contract.� This is yet another example of why Congress must amend labor law to grant workers the right to first contract arbitration, ensuring that their vote for a union actually leads to a union contract.

Watch Out Unionbusters: There's a New Sheriff in Town

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:57:53 +0100

The American workplace is like the Wild West, where employers rampantly break the law to suppress union organizing without facing meaningful repercussions.� The National Labor Relations Board cannot assess fines against lawbreaking employers, and forcing employers to comply with its orders can involve years of petitioning federal courts—often to no avail.� But employers in Arizona may now be shaking in their boots, as it appears that Wyatt Earp has come to town.� Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. District Court in Arizona just held a company owner in contempt of court [subscription required] for refusing to comply with an order to reinstate workers he fired for organizing, forcing him to surrender to U.S. Marshall custody.

David Bowers, the owner of an electric company in Arizona, was ordered by a circuit court in 2005 to reinstate four fired workers with backpay, after the Labor Board had ruled that the firings were illegal reprisals for the workers’ union activity.� According to an article in the BNA Daily Labor Report, the NLRB tried for years to get Bowers to comply with the order, but he refused.� After the NLRB approached the federal court with the case, Judge Campbell found Bowers in civil contempt of the court.� The NLRB Regional Director who had pursued Bowers told the BNA that federal judges rarely take such action in NLRB cases.� It’s about time someone brought some law and order to the workplace.

Supervisor Fired for Refusing to Name Names

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:23:22 +0100

I’ve read countless National Labor Relations Board cases involving employers who suppress employees’ rights by using supervisors to do their dirty work.� With their close contact and influence over employees, supervisors can be more effective than upper-level management in muzzling collective action.� Yet in one recent case, supervisor Barbara Lockerman refused to reveal the names of her employees who protested the working conditions at the Texas Dental Association.� She was fired for this act of solidarity.

Why Can't 60 Million Americans Get What They Want?

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:00:00 +0100

60 million non-union workers say they would join a union if they could, yet only 16 million workers belong to unions in the United States.� There are many ways to explain this discrepancy—for instance, aggressive unionbusting by employers and changes in the global economy—yet it’s hard to deny the impact of our weak labor law, made much worse by the Bush-appointed members of the National Labor Relations Board.�

Workers have successfully organized through the voluntary recognition process for years, yet the Republican majority of the Board undermined this process in their recent Dana Metaldyne decision. A group of AT&T technicians encountered this roadblock in their efforts to form a union this year.

Labor Law Is "Old and Getting Older"

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:46:24 +0100

Yesterday I attended a Senate subcommittee hearing on labor law where National Labor Relations Board Member Wilma Liebman gave a damning assessment of the state of labor law in this country.

Liebman testified that the law is not responsive to changes in the global economy and workplace, and that the Board is not acting vigorously to protect workers from employers “intent on killing an organizing drive.”� As evidence of a loss of confidence in the NLRB election process among workers and their unions, she cited the dramatic decline in representation petitions (a 41 percent drop between 1997 and 2006).�

Labor Board Chairman Peter Schaumber struck a far sunnier tone on the state of the NLRB, citing the fact that in fiscal year 2007, 93 percent of all elections were conducted within 56 days (only eight weeks of anti-union captive audience meetings before you get to vote!).�

His optimism further amazed me when he responded to Senator Tom Harkin’s question as to why the Board had not required employers post a notice in the workplace outlining employees’ rights to organize, the same way employers are required to do for other employment laws.

One Year Is Hardly a Swift Remedy

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:20:36 +0100

Even our best hopes for a more responsive labor law can fall short in combating egregious unionbusting.� A federal judge just granted the National Labor Relations Board’s request for a 10(j) injunction to reinstate workers fired by Frye Electric…more than one year after they were illegally fired for organizing.

An injunction can be used by the NLRB to quickly mitigate the chilling effect that firings have on organizing efforts by getting workers back on the job, pending an eventual Board decision.� Yet in this case, the process took over a year:

February 2007: The workers were fired.
May 2007: The NLRB issued a complaint.
July 2007: The NLRB filed for an injunction after an administrative law judge heard the case.
November 2007: A magistrate judge approved the injunction. The employer objected.
March 2008: A federal judge overruled the employer’s objections and ruled in the NLRB’s favor.�

It’s still crucial for the NLRB to pursue injunctions to mitigate the effects of firings, and the Employee Free Choice Act would mandate that the agency pursue this remedy during organizing and first contract campaigns.� Yet the Frye case reveals that even the best legal remedies far short, and underscores the need for greater public pressure to hold lawbreaking employers accountable.

Circuit Court: Bush Board Acted Unreasonably

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:23:31 +0100

Circuit court judges appointed by Presidents Reagan and G.W. Bush ruled recently that a 2005 decision by the Bush NLRB was unreasonable.

The Bush Board found that the CEO of Stanadyne Automotive Corp. acted legally when he prohibited “harassment” in response to what he described as “union supporters harassing…fellow employees” during the organizing campaign.� Yet the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed, and ruled that since the employer had already announced one illegal rule prohibiting workers from discussing unions with their coworkers, “no reasonable employee could fail to infer that the rule against 'harassment’…was intended to discourage protected election activity.”

Bush Board Violates International Human Rights Principles

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:18:21 +0100

In a rebuke of the Bush Board, an agency of the United Nations ruled that the NLRB’s decision to broaden the definition of supervisor was in violation of core international labor standards.� The International Labor Organization (ILO) charged that three 2006 supervisor decisions “appear to give rise to an overly wide definition of supervisory staff that would go beyond freedom of association principles… [and] might lead to the exclusion of wide categories of workers from protection of their freedom of association rights.”

Bye-Bye, Battista?

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:36:58 +0100

Could this could be the end of the Battista era? President Bush just issued a statement designating National Labor Relations Board member Peter Schaumber to be chairman of the Board.

What happened to former Chairman Robert Battista, whose renomination to the NLRB as chairman is pending at the Senate?� Perhaps Bush recognized that Battista’s confirmation was dead in the water, given his controversial and extremist anti-worker record as head of the Labor Board from 2002 to 2007.

Now the Board, comprised of just Republican Schaumber and Democrat Liebman, can continue to issue run-of-the-mill rulings — and we can all sleep a little better.

Wal-Mart Busts Union with an Assist from the Courts

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:47:36 +0100

Joe Hendricks wanted little more than respect from Wal-Mart when he decided to vote for union representation along with his coworkers in the meat department in 2000.� He told me that at Wal-Mart, “We was more of a number, you know?”� Yet after the union vote by the Jacksonville, Texas, employees, Wal-Mart eliminated meat-cutting positions companywide and argued that it had no obligation to recognize their union.� The company also fired Joe and several other union supporters.� The workers at the Jacksonville store remain the only Wal-Mart employees in the U.S. to successfully vote for union representation.

Now, eight years after the union vote, the D.C. Circuit Court just affirmed a National Labor Relations Board decision and ordered Wal-Mart to negotiate with the workers—but merely over the effects of the company’s decision to eliminate their jobs.� There will be no union representation at the store, and the workers won’t get to bargain over wage increases, job security, or better equipment.� Wal-Mart has successfully gamed the system and remains union-free.

Joe’s dream for respect is a basic one, but apparently one that our labor law system could not accommodate.��

The Troubling Normalcy of Unionbusting

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:26:33 +0100

After reading hundreds of National Labor Relations Board decisions, my eyes tend to glaze over at reading the same charges against unionbusting employers again and again.� A recent case involving the Hawaii Tribune-Herald is no different.

An administrative law judge found the employer guilty of firing or discriminating against four union supporters, interrogating employees about their union activities, and prohibiting employees from wearing buttons and armbands in support of their fired colleagues, one of whom was a veteran reporter.�

These are run-of-the-mill anti-union tactics we’d expect from Wal-Mart or Verizon…but from a newspaper?� What happened to the Fourth Estate—the press as guardians of our democracy?� Has our society become so accepting of unionbusting that a newspaper believes it’s suitable to break the law and quash its employees’ freedom of association?�

Real Consequences for Real Crimes

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:26:39 +0100

A citizen of Union Vale, NY, just gave me a tip about a case involving an employee of her town who was subjected to egregious harassment during his effort to organize his fellow highway department employees.�

As a public employee, Christopher Kemlage had to pursue his case with a federal district court since he is not covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). According to the judge, the town’s supervisors responded to Kemlage’s organizing efforts by using racial slurs, denying him the benefit of safety flagmen while he performed road work, and forcing him to remain confined in a truck where he feared for his life. The judge ruled that the supervisors violated several of Kemlage’s constitutional rights, including the right to freedom of association, and ordered the jury to award him damages. The town recently settled the case for $237,500.
�
While Kemlage deserved far more for all the pain he endured, this remedy was much more meaningful than one issued in a recent National Labor Relations Board case, in which an employer who subjected her employees to violent retaliation for their union support was merely ordered to post a notice saying she would not break the law.

Flag a Hollow Symbol at the NLRB

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:20:10 +0100

The National Labor Relations Board just issued a press release announcing a new policy that the American flag will be displayed at every union representation election, stating:

The display of an American flag will impress upon all the participants to elections — employers, unions, and most importantly voters — the solemnity and importance of the Agency’s election process.

In reality, NLRB elections bear no resemblance to political elections, and fall alarmingly short of the democratic process Americans envision when we use the term "election." Read on for a chart that makes it clear that NLRB elections are undemocratic.

Without Bush Board in the Way, NLRB Steps Up Enforcement

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:30:14 +0100

When the National Labor Relations Board shrunk to two members last month, NLRB General Counsel Ronald Meisburg was granted the authority to pursue 10(j) injunctions without needing the approval of the Labor Board.��

Meisburg is now pursuing an injunction that, if approved by a federal district court, will force an employer to offer interim employment to 85 mineworkers that it illegally refused to hire.�� These workers could get immediate relief while their case is pending at the Labor Board.� I hope this case is a sign that the NLRB is stepping up as a more aggressive prosecutor on behalf of workers.

Battista Board Redux?

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:02:11 +0100

I was just starting to appreciate a quieter National Labor Relations Board.� Since Battista’s term expired, the NLRB has been content to uphold the law rather than radically gut it. �Yet with President Bush’s recent renomination of former Labor Board Chairman Robert Battista, the ghost of rulings past is pounding on my door.

For those of you who can stomach it, here are some lowlights from the Battista Board…

This Just In: Bush Brings Back Battista

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:22:51 +0100

President Bush announced Friday that he’s renominating Robert Battista to the National Labor Relations Board, along with Dennis Walsh and Gerald Morales.� That’s right, Battista, the one who doesn’t believe the National Labor Relations Act should promote collective bargaining.

As Senator Kennedy has already pointed out, Battista’s renomination is unbelievable “after he led the most anti-worker, anti-labor, anti-union Board in its history.”� But really, would we expect anything more than an under-the-radar nomination from this administration?

Stay tuned for more from Erin this week on these late Friday nominations.

Everyone's the Boss in Bush Board's Bizarro World

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:48:24 +0100

Nurses of the Salt Lake Regional Medical Center in Utah are the latest victims of the National Labor Relations Board’s three supervisor rulings, which vastly expanded the definition of supervisor and potentially denied millions of workers their freedom of association.�

When the nurses voted on union representation back in 2002, their employer filed an objection with the NLRB claiming that most of the nurses were “supervisors”—which stalled the election process and kept the nurses’ ballots locked up.�

Based on one of the 2006 supervisor rulings, the NLRB regional director recently determined that nearly half of the nurses were supervisors.� The nurses just announced that they are giving up their effort to form a union because of “the current climate with its wild and bizarre interpretation of the rule where everyone can be a supervisor."� Their 5-year-old ballots will remain uncounted.

Boss Goes Berserk, Drives into Picketers

Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:34:57 +0100

No, this isn’t a horror movie.� It’s not even the National Enquirer.� It’s a National Labor Relations Board case including an account of an employer who nearly killed her striking employees in an anti-union rampage.�

When the owner of Advanced Architectural Metals in Nevada refused to pay workers the wages and benefits defined in their contract, they decided to strike in protest in July 2006.� The owner responded by firing all the employees and leaving threatening voice mail messages: “I’ve got a gun and if any of yous [sic] are on my property…I’ll shoot you dead.”�

Here’s the administrative law judge’s account of what happened once the employees began picketing:

Irish [the owner] came out of the building, yelled at the employees, and said that she had a big truck and if the employees got in her way, she would run them over. She then got into her truck, and drove directly at Sala [an employee], who was standing on the sidewalk, away from the driveway.� Irish had to veer off the driveway and onto the sidewalk as she drove her truck at Sala. She stopped her truck within inches of Sala’s body. Sala reflexly [sic] put his arms out, and her truck hit his hands. Fortunately, a post in the sidewalk stopped Irish’s further progress at Sala.

Stronger Unions for a Stronger Middle Class

Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:13:34 +0100

While documenting our failing labor law system is crucial making the case for reform, sometimes I have to take a step back. We still need to convince the broader public that unions play a vital role in today’s economy.�

Fresh from the national conference of the Labor and Employment Relations Association (LERA), I'm armed with more examples of how unions work to benefit a community larger than their own members:

A partnership between union members and the Veterans Health Administration allowed crucial input from nurses during collective bargaining, enabling the smooth introduction of a computerized system for administering medication. The new system led to a 70 percent reduction in medication errors.�
At the Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn, the labor-management partnership improved quality of care by allowing increased input from front-line workers. Results included a decline in hospital-borne infections and a decrease in response time to patients in trauma.
Then there’s the untold story of the AFL-CIO's Gulf Coast project. The $1 billion effort to revitalize and rebuild the post-Hurricane Katrina Gulf Coast is a touching example of unions investing resources where they’re needed most—even in areas with very low union membership.

Still need another reason to believe in this country's labor movement? Just ask renowned economist Paul Krugman:

As Three NLRB Terms Expire, Workers Breathe a Sigh of Relief

Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:32:13 +0100

Last month, National Labor Relations Board Chairman Battista's term expired.� Recess appointees Walsh and Kirsanow join him with the end of the 2007 Congressional session.� Just before the New Year, the agency delegated decision-making authority to members Kirsanow, Liebman and Schaumber.� Now just the two members remain.� Let's hope this smaller body will wreak less havoc on workers.

Employers Can Ban Union-Related Email, Says NLRB

Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:00:43 +0100

On the eve of his expiring term, the NLRB's Chairman Robert Battista offers a generous parting gift to anti-union employers and a cruel kiss-off to hard-working men and women.� The latest assault on workers by the Bush-appointed majority of the National Labor Relations Board:� a precedent-setting ruling allowing an employer to ban union-related email communications.�

In a 3-2 decision, the Labor Board ruled that use of an employer's email system for union members' communications is no longer a protected right.� Battista and two other Bush-appointed members argued that because the union members can still communicate face-to-face, the employer can decide to ban use of company email for union communications. The dissenting board members argue such communication in today's modern workplace should be protected speech, because email should be no different from " a telephone, a television set, a bulletin board, or a slip of scrap paper."

Thanks for the Warm Welcome

Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:17:42 +0100

We've received great interest from other blogs since launching Eye on the NLRB last week.

AFL-CIO Now, Change to Win Connect, David Sirota, FACE Talk (from the American Federation of Teachers), the American Constitution Society blog, the Workplace Prof Blog, and R. Enochs, Esq. all gave some love to our launch and helped call attention to why it’s so important to keep these labor law decisions on our radar screen.

Chris Bowers at Open Left took it a step further and gave some in-depth coverage to the Congressional hearings on the NLRB, while Current Employment commented on the uproar over the NLRB's “September Steamroll.”

And Surviving the Workday caught on to Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson’s insight into what’s really going on over there at the Labor Board.

Thanks to all of you who helped welcome us to the blogosphere, and keep your eyes here for our continued scrutiny of the NLRB.

1 NLRB 1

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:14:17 +0100

For you National Labor Relations Board novices, 1 NLRB 1 is the notation for the NLRB’s very first case.� In its first ruling in 1935, the Labor Board decided that when workers are illegally fired or refused employment because of their union support, it is the employer’s burden to demonstrate why the fired employee doesn’t deserve backpay from the date of the violation until the offer of reinstatement.

This precedent stood for 72 years—until the Bush Board reversed it, limiting backpay rights for workers who take a job with the intention of trying to form a union, commonly known as “salts.”� And it’s just one of many decided by the Bush Board that demonstrates its eagerness to reverse precedent and narrow workers’ rights without justification.

In his testimony before last week’s Congressional hearing, NLRB Chairman Robert Battista defended the Board’s reversal of decades of precedent: “Our Board, indeed, has reversed precedent but not as frequently as the Board did during the years 1994 to 2001.”�

Yet the issue is not the number of reversals, but the rationale for the Bush Board’s dramatic overhaul of the law.

Law Professors to Congress: Do Something Already!

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:53:54 +0100

It's not every day that a labor law blogger has the thrill of watching Congress put the National Labor Relations Board on the hot seat.� Each time I revisit the testimony from last week’s joint House and Senate subcommittee hearing, I find new layers of this story to share.�

In a letter to Congress added to the hearing record by Senator Kennedy, a majority of U.S. labor law professors lambasted the Bush Board’s record:

The Congresses that enacted and amended the NLRA from 1935 to 1959 viewed collective bargaining as an essential way to maintain and expand America’s middle class.� This Board’s decisions, significantly eroding workers’ ability to gain the right to bargain with their employer for a better future, highlight the need for legislative reform and for a return by the current Board to its statutory mandate.� We call upon Congress to address both of these urgent needs.

Media Waking Up to the Labor Law Crisis

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:36:24 +0100

Following Thursday’s Congressional hearing on the National Labor Relations Board, there are signs that news media outlets have heard the growing opposition to the disastrous decisions of the NLRB.

Check out some choice quotes and a few highlights from the news coverage:

Battista's Revisionist History

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:04:22 +0100

Robert Battista came clean today.� The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board admitted before a joint subcommittee hearing of the Senate and House that that he no longer believes that the primary purpose of the National Labor Relations Act is to promote collective bargaining.�

While for years I’ve written that this Board is more concerned with management rights than with the rights of workers to have a union contract, I’m surprised Battista publicly articulated that his Board gives less weight to the promotion of collective bargaining than what the NLRA’s drafters originally intended.

After several members of the subcommittees charged that the Bush Labor Board has failed to uphold this original purpose, Battista implied that the Taft-Hartley Amendment of 1947 repealed the primary goal of the NLRA, which had been to promote collective bargaining.��

Labor Board Member Wilma Liebman, who has dissented from the many anti-worker decisions by the Board, countered Battista’s “revisionist history.”� She argued that the original language still stands and that this shift away from promoting collective bargaining was a “dramatic policy decision” that no Board has previously made:��

The Board is notorious for its seesawing with every change of Administration. But something different is going on – more 'sea change' than 'see-saw.'� The current Board, it seems to me, is divorced from the National Labor Relations Act, its values, and its goals.

Reading from the NLRA’s preamble, she reinforced her point that in no way did Taft-Hartley diminish the primary purpose of the Act.

More highlights from the hearing...

Meyerson: The "Fox in the Henhouse" Administration

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:01:50 +0100

This is how Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson aptly described the prevalence of “counter-regulatory regulators” in the Bush administration, with the anti-worker National Labor Relations Board as a prime example.�

Meyerson spoke at today’s meeting of the DC chapter of the Labor and Employment Relations Association, where he continued to impress me with his ability to include labor law issues in the big picture discussion of income inequality.� He argued that the abysmal state of labor law and need for reform should be front and center in the progressive agenda of those seeking office in 2008.� The case for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, Meyerson argued, is to both “empower American workers…in the workplace,” and to “rebuild broadly shared prosperity that was the national testament to the greatness of democracy.”�

Keepin' an Eye on the NLRB

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:53:19 +0100

For over three years, American Rights at Work has published “Workers’ Rights Watch: Eye on the NLRB,” publicizing the insufficiency of U.S. labor law while raising awareness of a little-known agency making critical decisions affecting workers' lives and freedoms.

I’m excited to share that we are re-launching this publication as a blog, allowing me to post more frequent and timely commentary on NLRB decisions, and to generate more attention to decisions which make the case for labor law reform.

You can find Eye on the NLRB at www.eyeonthenlrb.org.

Seeking Justice at the Labor Board? Don't Hold Your Breath

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:00:00 +0100

Way back in 1989, over 200 Domsey Trading employees decided to form a union and the company retaliated with physical assaults, racial and sexual abuse, and illegally firings.� Yet these workers had to wait until this past September for the National Labor Relations Board to confirm the amount of backpay the company owed them.� I’m a patient person, but 18 years is a long time for wait for justice.� Tragically, one of the main union supporters passed away before he could collect his backpay.�

The Domsey Trading case is one of many issued by the Labor Board in September marred by outrageous delays...

Battista in Wonderland

Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:00:00 +0100

This past September, National Labor Relations Board Chairman Robert Battista, appointed by Bush in 2002, led his fellow Republicans in a flurry of anti-worker decisions.� After reviewing these decisions, I’m momentarily deluded into thinking that Americans wield enormous power in the workplace that needs to be checked, and that employers can only catch a break when the government steps in to protect them.� When I quickly return to reality, I’m left wondering if Battista and friends missed the sarcasm in Stephen Colbert’s call for management “solidarity.”

The National Labor Ruination Board

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:00:00 +0100

In a scathing op-ed in The Washington Post, columnist Harold Meyerson re-names our failing workers’ rights agency the “National Labor Ruination Board” in response to the slew of anti-worker decisions issued in September.� Meyerson cited a case where the Labor Board denied illegally fired workers backpay for failing to immediately look for new work, “because to do so, the Bush appointees wrote in unconscious homage to Dickens, ‘would be to reward idleness.’”

Meyerson also nominated two of the Labor Board’s rulings to the “Double Standard Hall of Fame.”� In the Dana/Metaldyne ruling, the Republican majority ruled that when workers form a union by signing cards or petitions, they are subject to pressure and thus it is not the best way to determine worker sentiment.� However, in Wurtland Nursing, the Republican majority ruled that signed cards or petitions are a perfectly suitable demonstration of worker sentiment, making no reference to the potential for coercion from managers or co-workers.� Meyerson concluded:

Signed petitions from workers, in other words, are suspect when the workers want a union and proof positive when they don't.