"Restoring Balance: Ensuring Fairness and Transparency at the NLRB"

House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions

2025-06-11

Loading video...

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

This meeting of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions addressed the current state of labor law under the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), aiming to explore solutions that promote worker choice, predictability for employers, and fair representation in union elections. The discussion highlighted starkly contrasting views on the NLRB's recent actions, with some members and witnesses criticizing its perceived overreach and pro-union bias under the Biden-Harris administration, while others defended its efforts to empower workers and balance power dynamics in the workplace.[ 00:23:23-00:23:26 ] [ 00:23:33-00:23:42 ] [ 00:33:13-00:33:20 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in

Themes

NLRB's Alleged Overreach and Pro-Union Bias

Republican members and some witnesses strongly criticized the Biden-Harris NLRB for allegedly acting as a litigation arm for big labor, undermining democratic processes, and exceeding its congressional authority.[ 00:23:33-00:23:42 ] [ 00:25:27 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 They argued the board "gutted" the historic preference for secret ballot elections in favor of card checks, made it an unfair labor practice for employers to discuss unionization with employees during work time, and expanded the definitions of "employee" and "joint employer" beyond congressional intent.[ 00:23:54-00:24:31 ] [ 00:26:13-00:26:34 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Specific policies, such as the Cemex decision and the reinstatement of the blocking charge policy, were cited as examples of the board tilting the playing field in favor of unions and delaying or preventing timely elections.[ 00:25:52-00:25:52 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Conversely, Democratic members and Ms. Jennifer Abruzzo asserted that the NLRA's intent is to protect workers' freedom of association and encourage collective bargaining, arguing that the board's actions aim to correct inherent power imbalances in the workplace and ensure fairness.[ 01:00:16-01:00:21 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in

Worker Choice and Election Procedures

The discussion heavily focused on worker choice in union representation. Republican members and witnesses championed secret ballot elections as the "gold standard" for democratic systems and criticized the card check process as inferior and prone to intimidation.[ 00:23:45-00:23:47 ] [ 01:02:23 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 They cited instances where unions allegedly used frivolous charges to delay elections and where a small minority of workers could lead to unionization, arguing that existing procedures do not adequately ensure true worker enfranchisement.[ 00:25:52-00:25:52 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 00:54:00 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 01:24:23-01:24:30 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Proposed legislative solutions included the Secret Ballot Protection Act, to guarantee secret ballots, and the Worker Enfranchisement Act, to require a quorum of workers for union elections.[ 00:24:17 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 01:25:02-01:25:08 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Ms. Abruzzo clarified that voluntary recognition through card checks is legally permitted by the NLRA, but employers retain the option to file a petition for a board-conducted secret ballot election. She noted that if employers violate the law during the election process, they may be subject to a bargaining order.

NLRB Independence, Funding, and Economic Impact

A significant point of contention was the firing of NLRB member Gwen Wilcox by the Trump administration, which deprived the board of a quorum. Democratic members and Ms. Abruzzo argued this action was illegal, unprecedented, and detrimental to workers, as it halted the board's ability to issue decisions, thus delaying remedies for unlawfully fired workers and emboldening employers to violate labor laws with impunity. Concerns were also raised about the Trump administration's executive order attempting to control independent agencies and the NLRB's chronic underfunding, which leads to case backlogs despite a dedicated staff. Ms. Abruzzo called for full funding of the NLRB, estimating a need for an additional $100 million. Republicans, on the other hand, questioned the NLRB's use of resources, citing millions wasted due to decreased settlement rates under the previous administration's policies. The impact of labor policies on the economy was also debated, with Republicans suggesting that broad definitions of "employee" and "joint employer" harm entrepreneurship and business relationships.[ 00:26:27-00:26:34 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Democrats countered that unions generally lead to higher wages, safer workplaces, better benefits, and reduced racial and gender pay disparities, benefiting both workers and the broader economy.

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was notably contentious and partisan, reflecting deep ideological divides between the Republican majority and Democratic minority regarding labor law and the role of the NLRB.[ 00:23:33-00:23:42 ] [ 00:33:13-00:33:13 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Republican members used strong language to criticize the Biden-Harris NLRB, accusing it of "gross mismanagement" and "gutting the democratic process."[ 00:23:33 ] [ 00:23:42 ] Democratic members, in turn, described actions by the Trump administration as "unprecedented" and "illegally firing," framing the debate as a fight against those who "rigged against American workers." While both sides invoked "balance" and "fairness" as goals, their interpretations of these terms were diametrically opposed.[ 00:27:29 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 The exchanges were characterized by accusations of political interference and a stark contrast in views on how labor policy should best serve workers and the economy.

Participants

Transcript

The Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions will now come to order.  I note that a quorum is present.  Without objection, the chair is authorized to call a recess at any time.  Today's hearing will examine the current state of labor law under the National Labor Relations Board and explore solutions that promote worker choice, provide legal predictability and stability for employers, and give workers better access to fair representation   in their elections.  In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act to protect workers and to supervise union elections through the NLRB.  Under the Biden-Harris administration, however, the NLRB engaged in gross mismanagement and acted as the litigation arm for big labor, protecting union bosses rather than elevating rank and file members.   The board spent four years under the Biden-Harris administration gutting the democratic process by which unions become exclusive representatives of employees.  One way in which the board undermined this valued democratic process is by attacking the use of secret ballots.   Secret ballot elections are the gold standard in any democratic system.  That is why the NLRA, the board, and the courts have traditionally encouraged their use in union elections.  However, the Biden-Harris NLRB gutted that historic preference for secret ballot elections in favor of the card check process.  I have been committed to protecting the use of secret ballots, which is why I recently introduced   the Secret Ballot Protection Act, which guarantees that every vote to unionize a workplace is cast with a secret ballot.  In yet another blow to workforce democracy, the Biden-Harris NLRB gagged employers who wished to exercise their free speech rights during a union election campaign.
The board made it an unfair labor practice for an employer to require its employees to attend a meeting on work time and discuss its stance on unionization.  The cornerstone of any campaign is robust debate about the pros and cons of the various candidates and options.  But the Biden-Harris board was less interested in debate and democracy than it was in seeing that unions were entrenched in every workplace.   One of the purposes of NLRA is to help resolve workplace conflict and remedy unfair labor practices.  Congress created the NLRB to right wrongs, not to punish wrongdoers.  But the Biden-Harris board was too interested in exceeding congressional authority, and both the general counsel and the board itself worked to expand ways to punish parties found to have committed unfair labor practices.   The NLRB also raised barriers to holding elections at all, even when employees petitioned the board for a vote.  The biggest hurdle was the return of the controversial blocking charge policy, which allows unions to file frivolous unfair labor charges and delay elections by months or years.  Finally, the Biden-Harris board spent four years engaging in government overreach to expand unions and their control over American workers.   The Biden-Harris board defined graduate students and student athletes as employees, simply so these groups can unionize.  The NLRB also adopted an elastic standard to determine whether a worker is an employee covered by the act or an independent contractor, despite data showing that this will have a disastrous impact on the economy.  Similarly, the board published a final rule establishing a broader standard   to determine the existence of a joint employer relationship, threatening the franchise model and other business relationships.  I will continue to fight for the rights of American workers and push back on LNRB overreach.
For many Congresses, I have introduced the Employee Rights Act, which addresses these issues I have mentioned here today.  As I work to reintroduce this bill, this Congress, the well-being of the American worker will remain at the forefront.   We are here today to discuss how to ensure the NLRB serves the interest of workers as Congress intended.  It is time for the board to champion the right of employees to pick the union, not the union to pick the employees.  It is time for the board to refocus on resolving workplace conflicts instead of punishing business owners.  I look forward to discussing how to adjust that with our expert witnesses today.   I hope that together we can find a way to make NLRB a more balanced referee of American workplaces.  With that, I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I want to thank the witnesses here today to have this open debate of ideas.  I just want to mention that   Unions are more popular right now than any time in American history, 71% according to well non-partisan vetted polling.  And that's because Americans know that they need a voice.  They need a voice in the most concentrated,   economy in American history worse than the Gilded Age of where the money is.  That picture at the swearing in of the current president where those three individuals have more wealth than 40% of the American population.  So we need countervailing institutions.   The American public gets it, Mr. Chairman.  Seventy-one percent of the American people know that labor unions are their voice.  And it is about balance.  But the idea, at least from my perspective, couldn't be more different than yours about the balance right now and the comments I just made.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up