In a contentious hearing that saw one witness attacked as a union-buster, the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce explored the ramifications of the NLRB’s proposed rule that would shorten the period between a union representation petition and election. The hearing, during which testimony from four opponents of the rule and one supporter was presented, was notable for its often-personal attacks and for the willful ignorance displayed by at least one member of the Committee. Under the proposed rule, a pre-election hearing would have to begin no more than seven days following the service of notice of the representation petition. Before the hearing begins, an employer would be required to state its position on any election-related issues that it plans to raise at the hearing. Following the employer’s presentation, the union would respond to those positions and, after the hearing, an ALJ would identify any disagreements.

Committee Chairman John Kline (R-Minn) set the tone for the hearing in his opening remarks. As is typical for the Chairman, he blistered the “activist” NLRB for rewriting the rules “to further tilt the playing field in favor of union interests.” Kline noted that unions currently win over 60 percent of elections, but failed to note that, in at least 35 percent of petitions, unions drop the matter before an election can be held. Continuing the theme of his recent attacks against the Board, Kline said that the proposed rule “is part of an ongoing effort to promote a culture of union favoritism that is creating greater uncertainty among America’s job creators.” For the rest of the story, click here.

Source: CCH Editorial Staff.