Union Elections Ambushed by Threats Against Workers, Not NLRB Rule, Witness Tells Committee
WASHINGTON—Free and fair union elections are jeopardized by anti-labor threats, such as those made recently in Tennessee, but not by the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) new election rule, according to witness testimony before the House Education and Workforce Committee today.
During the hearing, Democratic committee members defended the NLRB’s proposed rule from unfounded Republican attacks, while raising concerns about the democracy-threatening public comments that were made recently in Chattanooga, TN, when Volkswagen workers were voting on whether to join the United Auto Workers.
“Republicans are trying to contend that the NLRB’s sensible new rule would result in ‘ambush elections,’ when it does no such thing,” says Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), senior Democrat on the committee. “Yet there are plenty of people out there who are trying to ambush and undermine union elections. Recently in Tennessee, state and federal anti-union Republican elected officials made public comments on the eve of—and during—the union vote, that clearly sabotaged a fair election for the 1,300 workers at the Volkswagen plant.”
For example, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said, “I’ve had conversations today and based on those am assured that should the workers vote against the UAW, Volkswagen will announce in the coming weeks that it will manufacture its new mid-size SUV here in Chattanooga.”
Other Republican officials also offered comments making it clear that if the workers voted for the union, their jobs would be in jeopardy.
Volkswagen, which has a history of successfully working with unions, was neutral on the election, and supported a labor-management cooperative works council, attempted to set the record straight. Frank Fischer, the chairman and CEO of Volkswagen, refuted Corker’s comments, saying: “There are no connections between our Chattanooga employee’s decision about whether to be represented by a union and the decision about where to build a new product for the U.S. market.”
After the frenzy of threatening statements, plant workers narrowly voted not to join the union, even though a majority of them had signed cards saying that they wanted the UAW to represent them. The UAW has filed objections with the NLRB, alleging coercive third-party interference and requesting that the NLRB order a new election.
"That’s what a real election ambush looks like, especially when it comes just as the voting starts," said Rep. Miller. "You might expect to see this kind of bullying and intimidation of workers by public officials in Russia or China, but not here in the United States."
In contrast, the NLRB’s new rule will provide workers with a timely, fair, more modern process when deciding whether to be represented by a union, according to witness testimony.
“The current process is broken and allows bad actors to use litigation to stall union elections for months. These delays give unscrupulous employers time to engage in threats, coercion, and intimidation of workers,” says Miller. “While imbalances remain, the new NLRB rule will help create a process that ensures a worker’s decision about whether to choose a union is made more freely, with less bullying and interference from outside forces.”
In addition to reducing gamesmanship, the NLRB’s proposed rule will promote efficiency, standardize the process across regions, and generally support employee free choice in the workplace election process. The common-sense changes will increase transparency and reduce frivolous litigation, saving both time and money for employers, employees, unions, the NLRB, and ultimately, taxpayers.
By streamlining communication and calling for a timely exchange of information, the rule also creates a clearer process. In many cases, the rules simply codify best practices that have been common practice in some regions already, or reflect existing practices used during civil procedures.
"These rules are not revolutionary or radically different than the status quo. They reflect an attempt to standardize some of the best practices and create consistency between regions," said Caren P. Sencer, an attorney with expertise in the NLRB representation process who has been involved in approximately 200 representation cases. "Many of the proposed changes attempt to align the Board procedures to procedures used by other agencies, bring the process into the 21st century and provide clear notice."
The rule has already been informed by thousands of public comments and hearing testimony from dozens of organizations. During the original consideration of the election rule in 2011, the board received 65,958 comments over a 74-day period. It also conducted two full days of hearings, during which 66 individuals from a wide range of organizations testified. The NLRB continues to accept comments on this rule and is holding more hearings in April to ensure that all stakeholders have the chance to weigh in before the rule is finalized.
Despite this significant input, House Republicans derisively—and wrongly—continue to suggest that the NLRB’s proposed changes would allow for “ambush elections.”
“I do want to say that it’s an odd thing to complain of being ambushed by an election,” said Rep. Miller. “Only something that is not already a democracy complains about being ambushed by democracy.”
Next Article