02.23.18

Ranking Member Scott Urges Majority to Hold Hearings on Member Emanuel’s Conflict of Interests

WASHINGTON – Congressman Bobby Scott (VA-03), ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, sent a letter Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (NC-05), chairwoman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, requesting that the Majority hold a hearing regarding the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) Inspector General’s seven-day letter. The Inspector General’s letter notified Committee leadership of “a serious and flagrant problem and/or deficiency in the Board’s administration of its deliberative process and the National Labor Relations Act with respect to the deliberation of a particular matter.” 

“The Inspector General’s seven-day letter concerns whether Board Member William Emanuel should have recused himself from participating in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors (“Hy-Brand”), which overruled the Board’s previous decision in Browning Ferris Industries (“BFI”),” said Ranking Member Bobby Scott.  “The BFI decision concerned the question of whether Browning Ferris Industries, which operated a municipal recycling facility, was a joint employer of the employees it hired through the subcontractor Leadpoint Business Services. Member Emanuel’s former law firm, Littler Mendelson P.C., represents Leadpoint Business Services, one of the parties in the BFI case.”

It is extremely rare for an Inspector General to issue a seven-day letter. Under the Inspector General Act, an Inspector General can issue a seven-day letter whenever they become aware of particularly serious or flagrant problems, abuses, or deficiencies.  The last time the NLRB’s Inspector General issued one was in 1999, and few have been issued by other agencies’ Inspectors General.

The Inspector General’s findings to date are especially disturbing for an agency designed to be a neutral adjudicator. Because Hy-Brand and BFI are now tainted by Member Emanuel’s conflict of interest, the Inspector General found that “the whole of the Board’s deliberative process is called into question” and that Member Emanuel’s participation in Hy-Brand “calls into question the validity of that decision.” A Committee hearing with the Inspector General and Members of the Board is necessary for Congress to explore what has gone wrong and how to correct it. 

The text of the letter is enclosed below:

Dear Chairwoman Foxx: 

I write to request a hearing before the House Education and the Workforce Committee regarding the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) Inspector General’s seven-day letter sent to the Committee leadership notifying us of “a serious and flagrant problem and/or deficiency in the Board’s administration of its deliberative process and the National Labor Relations Act with respect to the deliberation of a particular matter.”  The Inspector General’s seven-day letter concerns whether Board Member William Emanuel should have recused himself from participating in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors (“Hy-Brand”),  which overruled the Board’s previous decision in Browning Ferris Industries (“BFI”).  The BFI decision concerned the question of whether Browning Ferris Industries, which operated a municipal recycling facility, was a joint employer of the employees it hired through the subcontractor Leadpoint Business Services. Member Emanuel’s former law firm, Littler Mendelson P.C., represents Leadpoint Business Services, one of the parties in the BFI case.

As you know, per House Rule X, our Committee has jurisdiction over “labor generally”  and Rule 2 of the Committee on Education and the Workforce specifically outlines our jurisdiction over “[a]ll matters dealing with relationships between employers and employees, including but not limited to the National Labor Relations Act.”  Furthermore, the Committee’s adopted oversight and investigative plan for the 115th Congress explicitly states that we will “conduct oversight and investigations, as appropriate, to ensure employee and employer rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) are protected and applied consistently and without bias.”  In the description of its oversight plan, the Committee states it will provide “particular scrutiny to the Board’s … decisions affecting joint-employer standards … under the NLRA.”

In his letter to the oversight committees, the Inspector General found the deliberations in Hy-Brand to be so intertwined with those of BFI that they constituted the same proceeding.  Member Emanuel’s participation was therefore subject to the President’s ethics pledge in Executive Order 13770, which prevents him from participating in a case where Littler Mendelson represents a party. Because Hy-Brand and BFI are now tainted by Member Emanuel’s conflict of interest, the Inspector General found that “the whole of the Board’s deliberative process is called into question” and that Member Emanuel’s participation in Hy-Brand “calls into question the validity of that decision.”

The Inspector General’s findings to date are especially disturbing for an agency designed to be a neutral adjudicator. Committee Democrats have inquired into the basis for Member Emanuel’s participation in Hy-Brand, but responses to date have been unsatisfactory. To that end, I respectfully ask that you schedule a hearing to secure answers and steps the NLRB has taken in light of the Inspector General’s findings of this “serious and flagrant problem and/or deficiency,” and what steps the Board will take to restore the public’s confidence.

Madame Chair, it is extremely rare for an Inspector General to issue a seven-day letter. The last time the NLRB’s Inspector General issued one was in 1999, and few have been issued by other agencies’ Inspectors General. A Committee hearing with the Inspector General and Members of the Board is necessary for Congress to explore what has gone wrong and how to correct it.

Sincerely,

Bobby Scott (VA-03), Committee on Education and the Workforce, Ranking Member

 

###

Press Contact

Democratic Press Office, 202-226-0853