Former NLRB Attorney Believes NLRB is Overreaching
This morning the House Education and Workforce Committee held a hearing that focused on many of the recent actions of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The hearing was titled “Culture of Union Favoritism: Recent Actions of the National Labor Relation’s Board.”
One of the witnesses was Curtis L. Mac who served as a regional director for the NLRB for five years and also served as an NLRB attorney in Cleveland. In his testimony Mr. Mack makes it clear in his testimony that he believes the recent actions by the NLRB interfere with employers’ rights to communicate with employees:
I believe theserules and decisions come at the expense of employees and emasculate Section 7 of the Act. They will interfere with employees’ rights to decide for themselves whether to join a union or refrain from joining or supporting a union. These actions will also interfere with employers’ rights to communicate with their employees regarding unionization issues. In short, the only beneficiaries of these new rules and decisions are unions.
In the conclusion of his testimony Mr. Mack states that he believes the recent decisions by the NLRB on the Specialty Healthcare case and Lemons Gasket Co case is the board’s attempt to implement the Employee Free Choice Act, which Congress rejected:
I believe that Specialty Healthcare, Lemons Gasket Co. and the proposed rules are the Board’s response to the failure of the Employee Free Choice Act. That proposal would have by passed secret ballot elections and required employers to recognize a union 14 on the basis of cards signed by employees publically. Congressappropriately refused to deny American workers their right to a secret ballot, but the Board’s proposals and decision seems to be an attempt to salvage the heart of EFCA.