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

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

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 the— 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— 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 4 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 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 wish 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 4 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 NLRB 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— how to just that with our expert witnesses today. I hope that together we can find a way to make NLRB a more balanced referee of American workforces— workforces— workplaces. With that, I yield to the ranking member for an opening statement.

Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)SPEAKER_03

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 anytime in American history, 71%, according to well nonpartisan, 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. 71% 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. Today's hearing is an important one in that regard, as we will discuss the National Labor Relations Board, the only federal agency that protects the rights of tens of millions of American workers to organize and have a voice. While I welcome the opportunity to discuss this and these important issues, committee Republicans are holding this hearing as if these are normal times and it is simply business as usual. Let me start by acknowledging the obvious. These are not normal times, and they're not normal times for American workers as their disposable income continues to shrink, as the promise by this president to do something inflation is actually not happening; it's getting worse. In fact, since returning to the White House, the Trump administration has unfortunately consistently undermined working Americans, particularly those who wish to exercise their right to organize and collectively bargain. In January, President Trump ordered the unprecedented firing of the NLRB— of NLRB Member Gwynne Wilcox, a highly experienced labor lawyer and champion for American workers. By firing Member Wilcox, the President stripped the NLRB of its quorum, preventing the NLRB from doing its vital work protecting American workers from harassment and coercion by union-busting companies. Then in February, President Trump issued an executive order giving himself unprecedented control over the rulemaking and legal positions of independent agencies, including the NLRB. The repercussions of this executive order could prove to be disastrous not only for the NLRB and the American workers they defend and their independence, but for workers as a whole. Since the NLRB's inception, workers have relied on the agency's expertise and independence in enforcing the National Labor Relations Act. Any loss of independence means that the NLRB and other independent agencies are vulnerable to direct political inference— interference from President Trump and the administration. Even though the NLRB has not issued reductions in force as of now, we continue to pay close attention to any efforts by DOGE to cut the NLRB's already bare-bones workforce. The board's workforce is nearly 30% smaller than it was 15 years ago, while its workload has grown. I also remain concerned that the President's budget fails to make the investments necessary to address the NLRB's staffing crisis, particularly at its regional offices. Today, we have a unique opportunity to learn more about what the Trump administration's policy mean for the NLRB as well as the American workforce. From true expert and committed public servant, we are very fortunate to have Ms. Jennifer Abruzzo. Thank you for being here again. You're You're a great witness in my— from my perspective, as one of the witnesses. She worked for decades at the NLRB, most recently as the general counsel. Based on the title of today's hearing, committee Republicans will have you believe that the scales have been tipped in favor of pro-union workers or big labor bosses. That is far from the truth. By and large, the system remains rigged against American workers in favor of corporations that don't play by the rules. And let me say that this isn't about all employers. Many employers who have union contracts and don't play by the rules. The problem is that we're going down to the worst employers, employers who want to pay subminimum wage work— wages, are okay with violating child labor laws, and reliable, consistently proved to defend and help the economy labor laws that protect the American workforce. It's those employers that my hope would be that we would join in making sure that there's oversight and consequences when they violate not just the spirit of the law, but the letter of law, and allow for effective regulation. Simply look at the numbers. From 1979 to 2023, annual wages for the bottom 90% of American households has increased just 44%, while average incomes for the wealthiest 1% increased more than 180%. Let me repeat that again. 90% of American households, they got a 44% raise. Sounds like a lot. But the top 1%, people making over $10 million a year, made 180%. Again, it gets worse and worse at the expense of American workers who get up every day and go to work and perform well. 70%, as I said in my beginning comments, approve of labor unions, and 60 million American workers say they would unionize if given the opportunity. And even for those who don't unionize, we know from the research that union activity raises the bar for everyone, union and nonunion, makes the country a better place and more productive, makes it more like the Eisenhower administration when we grew the American middle class and a GDP of 6% over a decade. Meanwhile, worker— workers organizing has skyrocketed over the last few years, yet union membership has hit a new record low. Why is this the case? It's because for too long, unscrupulous employers—not all employers—have weaponized captive audience meetings, face no real penalties for illegal firings, and exploited procedural tricks in NLRB proceedings to crush workers' unions' efforts and their ability to have a voice. I come to this hearing with what I believe is a unique perspective. As many of you know, I own small businesses. I made many payrolls in a very difficult business, the restaurant business, and I take pride in the relationships I formed with my employees during that time. They made me successful. I learned that the success of a business lies in the relationship between the employer and the employees, union or nonunion. Treating workers with respect that they deserve is not only not only a right, it is a savvy business practice, and it is the essence of America. As de Tocqueville said in the 1800s, the simple genius to America is to expect exceptional things from ordinary people. That works in employer-employee and in the business sector.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

I

Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)SPEAKER_03

I'm also a former union member, having been a Teamster and a member of the AFL-CIO. I know firsthand the benefits of union membership and the power unions have in bridging the gap between workers and their employers, helping all workers—and not just those, as I have said, who are union members—earn higher pay, better benefits, safer workplaces, and have respect. Forming a union must be a right and not a fight. Democrats will not stay quiet while this administration attacks American workers. I hope we can have a productive discussion today, Mr. Chairman, that centers around workers' experiences and also focuses on low-road employers who do a disservice not just to their workers, but to the best American employers who respect their workers. Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

The ranking member yields. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c), all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5:00 p.m. 14 days after this hearing. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I will now turn to the introduction of our four distinguished witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Aaron Solem, a staff attorney for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in Springfield, Virginia. Our second witness is Mr. Vincent Vernuccio, the president of the Institute for the American Worker in Hamilton, Virginia. And I hope I didn't mess that last name up too bad there. Our third witness is Jennifer Abruzzo, Senior Advisor to the President of Communications Workers of America in Washington, D.C. Ms. Abruzzo served as General Counsel of the NLRB during the Biden administration. Our last witness is Mr. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel at HR Policy Association in Washington, D.C. We thank the witnesses for being here today, and we look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to committee rules, I would ask that you each limit your oral presentation to a three-minute summary of your written statement. As committee members have many questions for you, the clock will count down from three minutes. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d) and committee practice, however, I will not cut off your testimony until you reach the five-minute mark. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. Now it's my privilege to recognize Mr. Solem for your testimony.

Mr. Aaron SolemSPEAKER_11

Thank you, Chairman Allen, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and members of the committee. My name is Aaron Solem. I'm an attorney at National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. I represent individual employees, workers whose voices are too often lost in policy debates dominated by union officials and employer interests. The National Labor Relations Act is fundamentally about employee free choice. It protects equally the right to choose a union and the right to reject one. The board is supposed to remain neutral between those choices. But over the past 4 years, the Biden NLRB has severely tilted the playing field in favor of union officials at the expense of employees who oppose union representation. And this shift wasn't surprising at all. President Biden promised to be the most pro-union president in history, and his appointees followed that lead. Consider just the following examples. In Cemex, the board held it would nullify an employee vote against a union and then decide that the union is to be the employees' representative if an employer supposedly committed even minor unfair labor practices. With the election prevention rule, the Biden board took away employees' right to call for a secret-ballot election after they are subjected to a union card-check campaign by restoring the so-called recognition bar. And also with the election prevention rule, the Biden board revived the discredited blocking charge policy, which allows unions to unilaterally delay an employee decertification election simply by filing an allegation against the employer. No neutral fact-finding required. The Biden NLRB's agenda confused empowering union officials with protecting employee free choice. This agenda ignores the reality that many workers don't want union representation. It ultimately infantilizes employees by treating them like sheep who are too ignorant to decide for themselves whether they want to be unionized. To restore balance and fairness, the next board and this Congress should advance a truly pro-employee agenda. This agenda should be centered on employee democracy and protecting employees' right not to fund union politics. That includes ending non-statutory election bars, like the recognition bar, that prevent elections at regular intervals, ending the blocking charge policy to restore employees' right to a timely secret-ballot election, protecting employees' right to opt out of funding for union politics, and ensuring open debate by protecting free speech on all sides. Labor law should protect employees, and that includes employees who don't want a union, employees who want information about the downsides of a union, and employees who want to work without being forced to fund union political causes. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions on all of these issues.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

Thank you, Mr. Solem. Now I recognize Mr. Vernuccio for your testimony.

Mr. Vincent VernuccioSPEAKER_09

Chairman Allen, members of the committee, my name is Vincent Vernuccio, and I'm president of Institute for the American Worker. I4AW is a 501(c)(3) educational organization focused on empowering American workers. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify here today. Constantly shifting interpretations of the National Labor Relations Act are causing confusion and harming workers. The National Labor Relations Board needs to restore balance and ensure fairness and transparency for workers, unions, and job creators. In addition to the NLRB's efforts, Congress can work to enhance a level playing field, ensuring NLRA empowers the American worker with a fair and transparent system. This system should prioritize worker enfranchisement, ensuring that a majority or quorum of the full bargaining unit has a say in union elections to make sure unionization reflects the true will of the workforce. This is something that a plain reading of the NLRA already provides. The Act is clear: representatives are to be selected or designated by, and I quote, "the majority of the employees in a unit." The NLRB should also ensure workers can make an informed decision on unionization by not stifling speech and forbidding employer meetings on unionization. These meetings are essential to allow workers to hear all sides on what a unionized workplace would mean for them and their families. The board should also ensure the NLRA does not shield harassing or discriminatory language or conduct, preserving a respectful workplace. It should also preserve independent work arrangements and maintain a clear, direct control standard for joint employment. Many of these issues can be addressed at the board level. Still, Congress can and is taking steps to protect transparency, fairness, and the ability of workers to champion their own destiny. Representative Bob Onder recently introduced the Worker Enfranchisement Act, which would require a quorum of workers to vote in a secret ballot election before a union is organized. To give workers more freedom, Representative Eric Burlison in the last Congress introduced the Workers' Choice Act, which would allow workers in unionized jobs in right-to-work states to opt out of representation and negotiate directly with their employer. Representative Kevin Kiley recently introduced the Modern Worker Empowerment Act to ensure that American workers who want to work for themselves or earn extra side income are not forced to be employees. Unfortunately, on the negative side, Senator Josh Hawley has introduced the Faster Labor Contracts Act, which would allow government bureaucrats to force arbitration for first contracts on workers, unions, and job creators. Labor law needs to embrace and encourage entrepreneurship and the flexibility that modern workers want. Congress has sought to remedy many of these matters through legislation, and the NLRB can also restore balance for workers by embracing traditional interpretations on these issues and staying faithful to the plain language of the nLRA. Thank you for giving me this opportunity, and I will welcome any questions.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

Thank you, Mr. Vernuccio. Next, I recognize Ms. Abruzzo for your testimony.

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Thank you, Chairman Allen and Ranking Member DeSaulnier. I'm Jennifer Abruzzo, and I served the public for almost 30 years at the National Labor Relations Board, most recently as its general counsel. As to the theme of this hearing, I would submit that we need to restore balance and ensure fairness and transparency at all workplaces around the country. In order to do that, the NLRB must be able to hold true to the public policy of the United States as stated in the National Labor Relations Act, and that is to encourage collective bargaining and to protect workers' full freedom of association. We all know that the power dynamics at workplaces are skewed in favor of employers. And in enacting the statute, Congress rightly recognized the only way to combat that power imbalance was by fostering strength in numbers among employees so they could act together and engage with their employers and negotiate over improved working conditions and wages, with or without a union. As written and intended, the NLRA is a pro-worker statute, not a pro-union one and not a pro-employer one. It protects workplace democracy where employees feel empowered to freely exercise their rights to engage in union or other protected activity to better their lives. The problem is that the NLRB is not fully protecting workers in this country right now, and it could get worse. Today, I share four action items for Congress to consider and implement. First, you should force this president to abide by the NLRA. In January, the president unlawfully fired board member Gwynne Wilcox, an experienced labor law attorney who was well, well steeped in labor law, violating not only the statute, but also 90 years of Supreme Court precedent. As a result, the board lost its quorum, which means it can't issue decisions. And who's benefiting from that dysfunction? Not workers—employers, employers who now feel emboldened to violate the law with impunity and retaliate against their workers because there's no functioning board to hold them accountable. So at the same time that corporations and billionaires are pushing for more tax cuts at the expense of working families, they're also trying to squelch worker action, worker power, worker voice. Second, Congress needs to fight to maintain the statutory independence of this multimember, bipartisan board and its decision-making authority through actions and arguments made in court. I think this president believes that he can ignore statutes, fire people at whim, and give his donors a blank check to trample on workers' rights in this country to unionize, collectively bargain, and act together to improve their circumstances. Third, Congress needs to fully fund the NLRB. When I started back as general counsel, the staffing was at the lowest level it had been since 1958. The staff is very talented and very dedicated, but they do not have the resources that they need to address the case intake. Until Congress fully funds the NLRB, workers are going to continue to experience long delays in getting remedies after being unlawfully fired. They can't get back to work in any timely manner. They can't get the back pay that they deserve. And unfortunately, corporations can afford to drag out the processes, but workers cannot. Fourth, Congress should use its power to make the law even more balanced and fair by passing legislation that protects more employees, covers more employers, assesses penalties for violators, and facilitates reaching collective bargaining agreements in a timely manner. Congress passed this statute in 1935 during the Great Depression amid widespread industrial instability and workplace conflict. A functioning, well-funded NLRB can help ensure stable labor-management relations at workplaces that inure to the benefit of workers, their families, their communities, and employers alike. So this is all about protecting workers and their families whose interests you were elected to represent. So thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

Thank you for your testimony. Lastly, I recognize Mr. King for your testimony.

Mr. Roger KingSPEAKER_07

Thank you, Chairman Allen, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and Committee Chair Walberg, and Ranking Committee Member Scott. It's nice to again appear before this committee. I'm here on behalf of the HR Policy Association. We represent over 350 employers that have operations throughout the country. Our employee complement of those member companies is almost 10% of the private sector workforce in this country. The issues before this committee on a continual basis are of vital interest to our association. I commend the committee for the title of the hearing today, Rebalancing the Application of the National Labor Relations Board. Suffice it to say, while I have a very high regard for my colleague Ms. Abruzzo, I believe she has an incorrect view of the National Labor Relations Act at the outset. What unfortunately many proponents come here, in this committee and other committees, and they make the statement that the National Labor Relations Act was passed to promote collective bargaining. That's correct to a point. But what those individuals fail to acknowledge is the act was enacted by the Congress for those employees that desire union representation. They have the cart before the horse. Collective bargaining doesn't occur unless or until a majority of employees in an appropriate unit have elected union representation. With respect to the balancing of the application of the act, it's been out of balance in a very significant way for the last four years plus. First, the Office of General Counsel has pursued initiatives that are not core important to the act. For example, pursuing the thought that college athletes, student athletes, should be covered by the National Labor Relations Act, a significant waste of government money and agency resources. And trying to narrow the definition of who is an independent contractor has interfered with numerous entrepreneurial opportunities for literally thousands of workers in this country. Further, broadening the definition of joint employer status has interfered with business relationships for thousands of employers and many, many more thousands of employees. The franchisor-franchisee industry has been seriously disrupted by initiatives by the National Labor Relations Board. This attempt to expand the act well beyond its intent, well beyond the core mission of protecting employees—and I certainly agree with Ms. Abruzzo, the act is intended to protect employees, not union institutional interest nor employer interest; it's about employees. But in the Office of General Counsel's pursuit of this agenda, they have wasted taxpayer dollars in numerous, numerous unneeded initiatives. The agency's own statistics show that for every lack of settlement percentage of 1%, the agency suffers at least $2 million of wasted resources. The settlement rate for cases has dropped dramatically under the past administration, at least 5%. That's $10 million right there. But that's not the end of the story. The time it takes to even get to a settlement has increased significantly. So at the time that the agency is not using its resources properly, it continually comes to Congress and asks for more money. That's certainly not appropriate. Briefly, with respect to the National Labor Relations Board's jurisprudence, the Biden board overruled literally decades of precedent. Mr. Allen, I commend you for your proposal to guarantee secret ballot elections. The Cemex case at bottom is all about eliminating secret ballot elections and relying primarily on card checks. That case alone overrules decades of precedent. The Amazon case that was referred to earlier prohibits employers from having meetings with employees regarding unionization. That case decision again overrules decades of precedent and is inconsistent with Section 8(c) of the NLRA and the First Amendment. And from my perspective, it has no chance of survival in the court. In summary, there are many other things, Chairman Allen, that we could discuss, and hopefully we'll have an opportunity to do that this morning.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

Thank you, Mr. King. Under committee rule 9, we will now question witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. Mr. Vernuccio, your written testimony reflects your concern that under current law, NLRB election procedures do not do a good job at ensuring workers get the collective bargaining representatives of their choice. As we all know, the Biden-Harris NLRB made it easier than ever for unions to come into a workplace without an election at all. How should current election procedures be changed to address your concerns?

Mr. Vincent VernuccioSPEAKER_09

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the question and the opportunity. Workers need empowerment, and when it comes to selection— to selecting a union, they need to be empowered to make that choice, to make that choice securely and privately. And that choice should be reflective of the entire workforce. Given some of your legislation in the past, Secret Ballot Protection Act, workers should be afforded the secret ballot to choose a union in private without intimidation or coercion. And we have heard countless stories before this committee of that type of intimidation and coercion that comes with card check and could come out of a decision stemming from the Cemex decision of the previous NLRB. Further, the NLRB should also honor the true language, the precise language of the National Labor Relations Act that says that a union must be chosen by the majority of all the employees in a unit, or at a minimum, a quorum of majority of the employees in the unit.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

Good. Thank you. Mr. King, last Congress, the Save Local Business Act was introduced to reverse the damage done by the Biden-Harris board's position on the joint employer issue. Can you explain the 2023 NLRB joint employer rule and how we can amend the law to create a predictable legal landscape for employers?

Mr. Roger KingSPEAKER_07

Well, hopefully an approach will emerge from the board, whether it be a Democrat board or Republican board, Chairman Allen. That only would find a joint employer relationship when there's direct and immediate control of one entity over another entity's employees in terms of conditions of employment. This area of the law has been turned upside down, back and forth. It is in a state of continual flux. It helps no one. And as I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, it particularly hurts franchisors. And franchisees, which are the bedrock of entrepreneurialism in many of the communities in, in your respective districts. This has to change.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

Yes, I agree. Mr. Solem, you discussed the Biden-Harris board's blocking charge policy in your written testimony. Can you expand on your comments and give some examples of the way the blocking charge policy has been abused by unions and the board to delay elections?

Mr. Aaron SolemSPEAKER_11

Chairman Allen, thank you for your question. I give a few examples in my written testimony on pages 8 and 9, but just to pull one out was one of my colleagues' cases. It was called Apple Bus Company. In Apple Bus Company, they filed for an election in 2017, and they didn't get an election until 2019 because, over the course of the next two years, the union filed 15 blocking charges, eight of which were dismissed. The other ones were settled with non-admissions clauses, so there was never any proof that any of the allegations exist. When the day for the election finally came, the union didn't even face the voters. They walked away. They disclaimed interest, which makes it look like they were filing just to delay their time in power. The blocking charge policy, which was brought back by the Biden board, is going to lead to more of this. And, in fact, Member McFerran's own dissent, dissenting from the Trump 1 rule, showed that roughly about 22.5 frivolous blocking charges were filed per year. And so, the Trump 2 board should return to the Election Protection Rule and allow employees to get elections promptly.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

Okay. Yes, thank you. Again, I was, for 40 years, ran a small business. And in fact, Mr. Ranking Member DeSaulnier and I talk about the old times. A lot. But I'll tell you, over my career, things changed drastically. It's a modern workforce today, a very entrepreneurial workforce. I was with a group last night and we were talking about ESOP programs and things like that. I remember that folks working at Procter & Gamble there in Augusta who were making nice wages, but they ended up millionaires because they were participating in the Procter & Gamble stock program. I know that my greatest privilege as an employer was to give our workers an opportunity, our employees, it's like family, actually, to provide for their family, provide for their church, their community, and this great country. And that is a great privilege. So please know that employers are very dedicated to—I'm sure there are bad actors, but for the most part, if you're going to stay in business, you better take care of your folks, is what we used to say. So with that, I'll yield back and now recognize Ms. McBath from Georgia for your questions.

Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and to your staffs, and to our witnesses for being with us today. By my count, we've had roughly seven different anti-union and anti-worker hearings at the full and subcommittee level last Congress, and that was more hearings than we had on any other topic considered before this committee. And the majority is picking up right where it left off in trying to make it as difficult as possible for working Americans to organize a union and protect themselves on the job. Regardless of what may be said at these hearings or how hostile to unions this president and this majority may be, the first section of the National Labor Relations Act clearly states that it is, and I quote, "the policy of the United States to encourage the practice of collective bargaining freedom and freedom of association," end quote. But that is the exact opposite of what we see from this president and House Republicans. Instead, we see efforts to change the status quo, to change the rules and make it as uncomfortable as possible for working men and women in this country to exercise their rights in the workplace. My Republican colleagues claim overreach by the previous administration, but fully support this president illegally firing Gwen Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board, essentially freezing this important agency and preventing it from carrying out its mission to protect workers from being wrongly fired for exercising their rights. Instead of changing the rules to make it harder for workers to organize and more difficult for companies to voluntarily recognize a union, we should be ensuring that every American can freely exercise their rights in the workplace without the fear of being fired and losing their main source of income. The difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue and so many others could not be more clear. The Democrats used our majority to save the hard-earned pensions of over 1.2 million Americans, literally preventing people from having to go back to work in their old age and helping them to enjoy their retirement. Republicans used their last majority under President Trump to change the law to prevent union workers from being able to write their dues off on their taxes. Now they are using their current majority to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while taking away nutrition and health care benefits from millions of families. And they're doing it all at the same time. Make no mistake: this majority is not a pro-union majority or pro-worker majority. As I mentioned earlier, President Trump illegally removed Gwynne Wilcox from the NLRB without a hearing, as required by law, just a week into the second term, showing that cracking down on unions was always their intention. Ms. Wilcox was not fired for negligence or for malfeasance. Like so many others, she was wrongly fired for her commitment to maintaining a political independence of this important agency. She was fired for her refusal to abandon the rule of law in this country and our long commitment to the idea that some government functions should be protected from special political interests. That commitment is what differentiates our country from corrupt authoritarian regimes, and that is what's at risk every day that this president is allowed to do these things unchecked. Ms. Abruzzo, beyond the fact that the removal of Ms. Wilcox is a true overreach of presidential power, can you talk about why every American should be concerned about a president firing a member of the NLRB without a legitimate reason for the first time in history?

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Yep.

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Thank you. Yes, it is all about protecting workers, and workers won't have an independent body to decide their cases. It is putting the scales— putting thumb on the scales of justice, rigging the system. And corporations with money and corporate billionaire donors will be able to influence the White House and be able to avoid liability. Or worse, you get folks, decision makers at the board that will call the White House and say, Hey, we have a case against Amazon, or, We have a case against Meta, or, We have a case against Tesla or SpaceX. What do you want us to do here? So it is the opposite of correcting the power imbalance, and it is allowing for workers to have less safe working conditions and more inequities at the workplace and less voice.

Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA)SPEAKER_01

Thank you so much, and I yield.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

The gentlelady yields. It's my privilege to recognize our great chairman, Tim Walberg, for your questions.

Full Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_05

Well, I thank another great chairman, and I appreciate the panel being here today. This is an issue that I've had concerns with for many years right now, and card check, in my opinion right now, does not serve unions well, with membership that feel at times that they are pestered and pushed in an unfair way to even consider unionization. But, Mr. Vernuccio, good to see you. Do you think the card check process is less fair than secret ballot elections? And what can be done to ensure fairness in that process?

Mr. Vincent VernuccioSPEAKER_09

Mr. Chairman, it's good to see you as well, and thank you for the question. Card check is absolutely inferior to a secret ballot election. We have heard testimony before this committee time and again of workers being intimidated, workers being threatened, and coerced of not getting the full story on unionization, signing cards only to regret that signature. The secret ballot gives those workers the opportunity to have a private vote where they can reflect on unionization, where there is not intimidation, where there is not coercion, and make that choice just like we choose for any political office in the privacy of a voting booth.

Full Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_05

I appreciate that, and I contend that if unions really understood it, this shows that the interest is not so much in the worker, but rather in just the operation of the union. And card check is wrong. Secret ballot is American, and we need to continue that. Mr. King, you devote a considerable portion of your written testimony sharing your perspective on the Faster Labor Contracts Act, which is which is appreciated by me. Based on your experience negotiating collective bargaining agreements, what effect would you expect this bill to have on parties' abilities to reach a first contract?

Mr. Roger KingSPEAKER_07

Nothing positive. I negotiated, Mr. Walberg, collective bargaining agreements for over 45 years, and many of those agreements were first contracts. While the association commends Senator Hawley for starting a discussion, unfortunately, he just lifted provisions from the pro-union act, the PRO Act, and put them in a bill. And as noted by my colleagues here this morning, that bill imposes, by government fiat, an agreement on the parties, union and employers, if no contract is reached within 180 days or somewhere in that timeframe. That's unrealistic. It has constitutional defects. It's seriously in conflict with the National Labor Relations Act. It was written without any input, any meaningful input, from other stakeholders. And I respectfully would disagree, and my association does, with the entire approach that Senator Hawley is taking.

Full Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_05

Along that line, do you believe the Faster Contracts Act would result in contracts that are substantially different than the ones arrived under current law?

Mr. Roger KingSPEAKER_07

Perhaps. We have this outside group of arbitrators, Mr. Walberg, that ultimately is going to be required to write the contract for the parties. And if we go under what's interest arbitration approach, which is what's in the Hawley bill, the arbitrators generally just split the baby and come out somewhere in the middle. No meaningful collective bargaining occurs. So yes, they could be quite different, quite detrimental to both employees and employers. Again, this proposal is defective in so many different ways. It was not well thought out, and it is something that hopefully the House will not take seriously in any way, shape, or form.

Full Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_05

I hear you. Mr. Solem, your written testimony describes various bars to elections, even though the NLRA only has a one-year election bar. Can you explain how all of these other election bars developed and whether they apply to elections both certifying and decertifying union representation?

Mr. Aaron SolemSPEAKER_11

Thank you, Chairman Walberg. Very quickly, there's several non-statutory bars, like the contract bar, which prevents an election for up to three years when there's a collective bargaining agreement in effect, except during a 30-day period; the voluntary recognition bar; the successor bar, you can't get an election when your employer sells its business. In terms of their development, I think former Chairman Miscimarra said it best when these developed as incumbent protection devices.

Full Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_05

I think my time has expired, but appreciate the thought. I yield back.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

Chairman, I'm just following your example here. I now recognize Mr. Mannion of New York for his questions.

Rep. John Mannion (D-NY)SPEAKER_13

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't mean to correct you. I'm sure you're also a great boss. Mannion, which misspells to man union sometimes. Not a joke. So thank you, all of your witnesses, for being here today. Thank you, Ms. Abruzzo, for your leadership at the NLRB and for the reforms you've achieved to support organized labor and protect workers' rights. I fear that some of that progress is now at risk due to this administration's efforts to weaken worker protections and undermine independence and capacity of the NLRB. Regional offices, especially in Central and Upstate New York, have been confronting serious staffing and resource shortages for years now, leading to unacceptable backlogs. Workers with valid complaints are waiting months, many times over a year, for action. These aren't just delays. They are denial of these workers' rights. And when we pair that with the proposed budget cuts to the NLRB, it's clear that we are headed in the wrong direction. The ranking member mentioned the popularity of labor unions. Well, in Upstate New York, in Syracuse and Utica, where I'm from, it's upwards of 80 percent. And the people who represent those union workers here in Washington and in Albany are pro-union and pro-worker. And if they're not, they're not there for very long. And it's not because of union bosses. It's because of trust. It's because of securing pensions. It's because of the grievance process. It's because of collective bargaining. The people of Central New York understand that the pathway to the American Dream is not just a good job. It's a good union job. And you can look back in almost any family's history in this country, and you will find that good union job that took people out of poverty. Before my time in Congress, I was the president of a 400-member teachers association—teachers, nurses, school psychologists, and social workers. I led two successful contract negotiations, including one that was unanimously ratified 366 to 0. So I understand the power of collective bargaining and the importance of a fair and a functioning system. That's why I strongly support legislative reforms like the PRO Act that would ensure workers' rights and that those rights would be better protected. Ms. Abruzzo, in your view, what statutory reforms beyond the adequate funding that you referenced, citing four items for actions by this Congress or others, are most urgently needed to empower workers and ensure that the NLRB can fully carry out its function?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Thank you. As I said, first of all, you need to bring Board Member Wilcox back and have a quorum. You need a well-steeped, well-experienced labor lawyer in that role. Otherwise, there will be continued violations of the law. Corporations make a ton of money off the backs of their workers, and those that need the most protections and the most tax breaks are workers and their families. So that's first and foremost. And secondly, as I said, there has to be independent decision-making at the board. If there isn't, then the power imbalance will just get even more skewed. Corporations will just use their money to influence the White House, and, again, that affects workers detrimentally and affects their workplaces, making them less safe, inequities, losing their voice. Thirdly, as I said, pass legislation that actually is more fair and more balanced for protections of workers' rights. Cover more employees, domestic workers, agricultural workers, those that are misclassified as independent contractors. Cover more employers that are actually joint employers who are trying to avoid liability or trying to not get at the bargaining table. Penalize violators of the law. That's how you deter violations from happening. And so those are—and, of course, as you said, fund the NLRB. That is, I believe the NLRB needs to be fully funded, and that requires at least $100 million more to their budget to actually protect the rights of workers in this country.

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT)SPEAKER_14

Thank you.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

The gentleman from New York yields. I now recognize my neighbor and friend across the river, Representative Joe Wilson, for his questions.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)SPEAKER_06

Thank you very much, Chairman Rick Allen, for your leadership. And it's very humbling on this side. I get to follow two great chairpeople. Can you imagine? Tim Walberg and Rick Allen. But I'm grateful to be here. And with that, too, I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. And of course, the National Right to Work Committee, to me, for decades has just been a pioneer for workers' rights and successfully promoting workers' rights and right-to-work laws in a majority of American states. South Carolina is a prime example of success with workers having rights to join a union or not, no forced unionization. The consequence has been that South Carolina now has become the largest manufacturer of tires in America with Michelin tires, Bridgestone tires, Continental tires, Giti Tire of Singapore, and the leading exporter of tires of any state in the nation. Additionally, South Carolina is the leading exporter of cars, with BMW's largest manufacturing plant, X5s for everyone, in Spartanburg, South Carolina, along with Volvo and Mercedes. Especially extraordinary is Boeing, with 10,000 jobs in the Charleston area building 787-10 jetliners. And my constituents directly benefit with Boeing by having tubing by Zeus Corporation, cable by Prysmian Corporation, and with JTEKT providing the interiors. And last year, I was happy to actually be in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where they announced a purchase of $39 billion worth of 787 jetliners. And of course, President Trump topped that. Last month, he worked with Qatar to buy $100 billion worth of 787s. And so we really benefit by having workers having a choice of jobs, unionization or not. And Ms. Abruzzo, I want to thank you for your service with the NLRB with Michael McHale Sr. And I'm grateful that the National Right to Work Act has been introduced over the years. I'm grateful to be the lead, 100 co-sponsors in the House, which erases forced dues clauses in federal statute without adding a single letter to federal law. South Carolina, as a right-to-work law state, has seen tremendous economic growth, as I've indicated, expanding economic freedom for businesses and workers. And we need to continue to promote job creation and ending forced unionization to extend workers' rights for the American people. Mr. Solem, the work that you do at the National Right to Work Foundation is so critical. And how is it that you assess the bill of workers' choice to be?

Mr. Aaron SolemSPEAKER_11

Thank you, Congressman. I think you just hit the nail on the head is that right-to-work drives job creation. If you look at a study that was done by Benjamin Austin and Matthew Lilley, who are at Harvard and Duke now, they found that there was higher employment and population growth in right-to-work states. But the best thing about right-to-work isn't necessarily economic growth. It's about employee free choice. The economic growth is just a positive externality of that.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)SPEAKER_06

And indeed, the Trump administration is proposing to pursue a pro-worker agenda. What would you look to as a pro-worker agenda?

Mr. Aaron SolemSPEAKER_11

Yeah, so how they can pursue a pro-worker agenda at the NLRB is to concentrate on—the way I think about it is the 3 Bs: blocks, stop blocking charges, stop bars, and enforce Beck, and move to an opt-in/opt-out system so employees no longer have to fund union politics without jumping through hoops.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)SPEAKER_06

And indeed, what a difference, because during the Obama administration, there was an effort to stop Boeing from being able to develop in Charleston. Out of the blue, they came and acted against our Governor Nikki Haley. They indicated that the plant couldn't be built. They already had 1,000 workers, had a 100,000-square-foot facility, and NLRB came in and said, You can't do it. But thank goodness we also have a very good Attorney General, Alan Wilson in South Carolina, working with our U.S. Senators Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham. And it was a real team effort, and with leadership, we were actually able to succeed. But what a difference. It's inconceivable to try to block such a development, which has been so beneficial to all American workers. And with that, I yield back to our great Chairman, Rick Allen.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

I thank my friend from South Carolina for yielding, and now I recognize Mr. Takano for his 5 minutes of questioning from California.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Chairman Allen, and thank you for the witnesses for being here today. Ms. Abruzzo, I just want to follow up on a question that got asked by one of my colleagues. I want to ask you, is card check required

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

law?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Sorry. So yes, by law, in 1935, the NLRA gave employees the right to designate or select their collective bargaining representative. What that means is that they can sign cards, and if a majority of those employees support unionization, then that union can then bring that forth to the employer and seek voluntary recognition. So voluntary recognition is actually in the statute right now. And to Mr. Vernuccio point, that is a majority of people who are supporting being represented by a union, and that is through cards or some other mechanism that shows that they have majority

Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)SPEAKER_08

Are employers or workers ever barred from asking for a secret-ballot election?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Well, under the Cemex decision, they are not. They can voluntarily recognize the union. That's their employees' choice, and they should respect their employees' choices. But they have the option under the Cemex decision to file a petition and get a board-conducted election. However, if they violate the law during the election process between the filing of the petition and the election being conducted in ways that do not allow for a free and fair election, they will be subject to a bargaining order.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)SPEAKER_08

So the assertion made earlier that somehow rulemaking or the Obama administra- or the the Biden administration had somehow done away with secret ballot election. Is that is that not a correct assertion?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

That is not a correct assertion.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)SPEAKER_08

So employers or employees could request a secret ballot, um, instead of the card check?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Correct. And oftentimes unions will file a petition to have a board conduct an election.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)SPEAKER_08

Thank you. Thank you. My colleagues have spoken about the seismic changes that have occurred for workers and organized labor since the Trump administration took office, including the unprecedented removal of Member Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board. As you stated, the removal of Member Wilcox deprived the board of a quorum. What does that mean for the workers on the ground, and can you give some examples of how this has impacted American workers?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Yeah. So right now, the board can't make— issue any sort of decision. So that means that workers who are fired, for example, cannot return to work, cannot get the back pay that they're owed. We are seeing delay tactics, whether it's in unfair labor practice cases where employers now are not settling cases. But rather litigating and then letting it sit at the board where a decision can't be made. So those unlawfully fired people can't get relief in any timely fashion. We're seeing it in election cases where they'll— the employers will appeal after an election and have it sit at the board. So when a union wins an election, there'll be an appeal by the employer, and then it'll just it. And so nothing can happen until the board reaches a quorum. And thirdly, just one other thing. They can also test cert, meaning that— and have been doing this— where union wins, they just say, we're not going to recognize and bargain with you, with your representative. And then that sits. And so what happens is it undermines employee choice. And it undermines union support because the union can't get to the bargaining table.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA)SPEAKER_08

Well, great. I'd like to note for the record that as of last week, there were 459 cases pending before the board. That is 459 cases of workers who won their union, but their bosses are refusing to bargain a fair contract, workers who have who have been fired but haven't gotten their jobs back, and workers illegally denied raises, including thousands of Starbucks workers waiting to get back pay. On February 18th, the Trump administration issued an executive order that mandates that the NLRB submit new regulations to the director of the Office of Management and Budget for review. It also allows for OMB to control NLRB's apportionment to advance the president's policies and priorities. It requires NLRB staff to— oh my goodness, I've run out of time. I'll have to let that some other member ask that question. I'll yield back.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and now I call on Dr. Onder from Missouri for your questions.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for taking time to come and be with us here today. We are holding this hearing today at an exciting time in the world of labor policy. The American people elected a president who is committed to improving worker freedom so workers can have a stronger voice. Workers have a right to organize and join unions. At the same time, workers' rights of free speech and free association must respect— be respected as well. Nowhere is this principle more important than in workplace unionization elections. Unions have at times hijacked these processes, sometimes with surprising results. According to research from the Institute for the American Worker, just 4.9% of current union workers have ever voted for the union that represents them. Unions frequently discourage workers who they know will vote against them during elections from voting altogether, leading to elections where only a handful of workers show up to vote and unionize an entire workplace. An example is the United Football League, where only 13% of players voted the union into power. Unionization elections should empower American workers, not cherry-pick the few workers who favor unionization. We must ask ourselves how we got to this point. A study published by the Institute for the American Worker and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy released this week entitled Misread: How Legal Authorities Allow Tyranny of the Minority to Subvert Worker Enfranchisement addresses this question. The study shows how flawed court interpretations of the Railway Labor Act and the National Labor Relations Act have given rise to our current predicament. Mr. Vernuccio, could you share with us some of the key findings of this study?

Mr. Vincent VernuccioSPEAKER_09

Thank you, Representative Onder, and it's good to be testifying in front of you again, this time in front of Congress. So thank you very much. And thank you for your leadership on the Worker Enfranchisement Act that would require a quorum of workers to bring in a union in order for that union to have exclusive representation and represent all workers. The Misread study that you cite, it has several findings, first of which it cites an earlier Institute for the American Worker study that shows that, as you said, only 4.9% of workers had ever voted for the union at their workplace. The reasons for that is many. First, it's, as you pointed out, unions can organize with a minority, a slim minority of workers voting for that union. It is also, as my fellow witness Mr. Solem has pointed out, the difficulty of removing a union when it is formed. This is why having a quorum or having, as the clear language of the National Labor Relations Act says, the majority of employees select the union is so important.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_10

Yes. Well, no, thank you, thank you for that. Yeah, thank you for your mention of my own bill, the Worker Enfranchisement Act. I think clearly we need a legislative solution to fix this problem. That's why my bill would require a two-thirds quorum of eligible workers to be present at a workplace unionization election for the election to be deemed valid. I believe this ensures a fair elections process, and before we subject the entire workplace to monopoly representation by the union, this is important. My bill, as you know, would also require secret ballot voting. The NLRB has long recognized that in-person voting via secret ballots results in the highest level of participation in union representation elections. The Supreme Court, in fact, in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., recognized that card checks are, quote, "admittedly inferior to the election process," and noted that, quote, "we would be closing our eyes to obvious difficulties" if we "did not recognize that there have been abuses, primarily arising out of misrepresentation by union organizers." Mr. Solem, I was wondering if you could highlight some of those abuses, particularly in light of the NLRB's Cemex decision.

Mr. Aaron SolemSPEAKER_11

Thank you, Congressman. Well, if you look at what Cemex does, it's rather radical. Cemex says we take an election, and we throw out the election results, and install the union by government fiat to rule even when they lost. And I'm running out of time, so just very, very quickly, card check is vastly inferior because all of the protections of a secret ballot election are missing in a card check. There's no secrecy, there can be coercion, and you can be asked time and time again to sign a card, whereas an election, you just vote once.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_10

Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Now I recognize Ranking Member DeSaulnier for your 5 minutes for questioning.

Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Abruzzo, the importance of the independence of all independent boards and commissions, but in this instance in particular, the danger to that independence as prescribed by statute, could you address that and the attack on that by this administration?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Yes, thank you. So workers, again, won't have independent— an independent agency and an independent decision decision-making. So what that means is that there'll be thumbs on the scale of justice. The system will be rigged. It means the people with more money, corporate billionaire donors and other corporations, will be able to spend their money to influence the White House to then avoid liability. And so it actually encourages corruption. And those that are at the effect of this are workers whose will have less power in their workplaces and less opportunity to make gains and to actually profit for the value that they add to their employers' profit-making enterprises.

Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)SPEAKER_03

And we've heard a lot about intimidation. You were there for 30 years. There's some of that that just happens in these kind of situations, but I think of the situation right now that's happening in Southern California with David Huerta, a labor leader for SEIU, and what happened to him and what is happening seems incredibly heavy-handed. So could you speak to that? As if we're going to get to what I hear all four of you say, and my Republican colleagues, is we want a balance. Certainly seems like we're out of balance from our perspective, and that's an extreme example right now, where fortunately he's been released and due process should go ahead. If he's broken the law, he should be held accountable. But the interpretation and the pretty heavy-handed application of the law, in this instance and others, is directed, I think, at labor, at silencing them.

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Yes, thank you for that. An injury to one is an injury to all. And this is an assault on immigrant communities who are being indiscriminately rounded up and detained, Detained but it's also an assault on this esteemed labor leader, it's assault on the labor movement, and it's an assault on all workers around the country and their rights in this country, including under the Constitution: their right to free speech, their right to freely associate, their right to engage together, their right to protest peacefully. And the weaponization of the federal government to squelch those rights and squelch that those actions cannot be tolerated. When I was general counsel, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And just because I was removed from my role as general counsel doesn't mean that I don't feel that I have that duty to this day. And we all need to do our part to ensure that we remain a country of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)SPEAKER_03

Ms. Abruzzo, history is repeating itself to me right now. I remember growing up in Lowell, Massachusetts, listening to my grandparents and their generation talking about the '30s when the Women's Federation of Textile Workers was the first labor union, and they were largely immigrants who who realized how they were being abused. The immigration, and I like to tease my good friend, former Chairman Foxx, that when she says this country was founded on freedom, I always add, and cheap labor. So it's a dynamic in our history that's replaying itself right now in Southern California from my perspective. People come here to aspire to get jobs, but on the other hand, unfortunately, there have been employers and political people who wanted them to work for nothing or next to nothing. Could you talk to that? Is that whether it's the Irish, the Italians, or people from Central and South America now today, we keep going through this struggle. And we can't forget the original sin of this country in terms of enslavement.

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Yes. And I would say that, you know, rather than villainize immigrant communities, we should be embracing these hardworking people. They take care of our parents. They pick and serve our food. They build our homes. They are a part of the fabric of this country. And so we should— you know, we have more in common than that which separates us. And we should be embracing everyone who makes sure that this country can function as well as it does. So Certainly, I, I couldn't agree with you more. There should be, uh, no intolerance when it comes to whether it's immigrant population or the LGBTQ population, for example,

Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)SPEAKER_03

for the good of the country.

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

That's right.

Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And now it's my privilege to recognize our great chairman emeritus of this committee, Ms. Foxx from North Carolina.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC)SPEAKER_02

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, and I thank our witnesses for being here. Mr. Solem, the NLRB during the first Trump administration issued an election protection rule. Could you explain and provide examples of how this rule safeguarded employee free choice? And I have some follow-ups, so I will ask you to be as succinct as you can, because I'd like to get all my questions in.

Mr. Aaron SolemSPEAKER_11

Answered Chairman Emeritus Foxx, I'll be very succinct. It guarded employee free choice because it meant a mere allegation couldn't derail an employee's decertification election.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC)SPEAKER_02

Thank you. So let me follow up. In August of last year, the Biden-Harris NLRB issued a final rule titled, quote, Fair Choice-Employee Voice, end quote, which rescinded the Trump board's election protection rule and reinstated the Obama-era, quote, blocking charge, ending, policy, which allows certain types of unfair labor practice charges to, quote, block a board-scheduled election. Can you explain the differences between the Trump and Biden policies as they relate to unfair labor practice charges? Do you believe the Biden-era blocking charge policy effectively weaponized unfair labor practice claims to stop workers from voting to decertify a union?

Mr. Aaron SolemSPEAKER_11

Chairwoman Foxx, you're absolutely correct. The difference between the two is under the Trump 1 rule, a mere allegation couldn't stop an election from occurring. Under the under the Biden rule, it means that any unfair labor practice that's filed, regardless of whether it's meritorious or not, will stop an election. So it incentivizes filing charges just to increase delay.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC)SPEAKER_02

Thank you. Mr. King, welcome back. Nice to see you, Dr. Foxx. We appreciate you coming so often. You say in your written testimony that you believe the restrictions the Biden NLRB General Counsel imposed on parties engaged in settling unfair labor practice charges proved deeply harmful. Could you explain why this was harmful?

Mr. Roger KingSPEAKER_07

The former General Counsel and her staff took an unrealistic approach to settlements. They cost the agency millions of dollars. Pursuant to the agency's own formula, for every decrease in the settlement rate, the agency suffers at least a $2 million hit, if you will. And the settlement rate, Dr. Foxx, under the previous administration dropped at least 5%. So that's $10 million right now. And finally, the time to get to settlement, when and if you could get to settlement, has lengthened considerably. So the budget of the NLRB has been adversely impacted by the prior administration.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC)SPEAKER_02

Thank you very much, Mr. Vernuccio. In 2023, the Biden board decided the Lion Elastomers case, which held that racist, sexist, and vulgar rhetoric is permissible in the workplace so long as it occurs in the context of union activity. What is your opinion of the board's decision in this case?

Mr. Vincent VernuccioSPEAKER_09

I think it opens up the workplace for an— it creates an unsafe work environment. It opens up the workplace to harassment, to vile language and conduct, and it prohibits employers from taking action to protect their employees. And those employees deserve that respect and that protection.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC)SPEAKER_02

And we are quite well aware of the vulgarity that has been used by union bosses in recent times. And this is, I think, really disgusting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time to you.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

Thank you, Dr. Foxx. And now I recognize my friend Joe Courtney for 5 minutes of questions from the great state of Connecticut.

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT)SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. This is sort of the annual, sort of, union-trashing event that we have in this committee. And it's interesting, because I usually try to point out what the latest polling from Gallup is in terms of the American people's view of labor unions. Again, last December was the latest version: 70% approval, second highest in history. And again, that's not always been the case, if you go back even a couple decades ago, where it had dipped closer to 50%. I also was privileged to join a bipartisan delegation to the Vatican a couple weeks ago for Pope Leo XIV's first papal Mass, which was unbelievable, to have an American pope up there. But his choice of the name Leo, I think, sent a very powerful message, because the last Leo, Leo XIII, wrote the papal encyclical Rerum novarum, in 1891, which recognized basically the dignity of work and the right of workers to, quote, "withhold their labor" as a way, again, of trying to improve their lot. It was written actually as sort of a counter to the sort of rising Marxism and socialism in Europe. But again, it was a recognition that we have to, in a free market economy, give workers a legal pathway to make sure that the value of their work is also reflected in terms of the labor market. And again, I think that's really what the genesis of the National Labor Relations Act was all about. A couple months ago in my district, we had a successful outcome collective bargaining between Electric Boat and the UAW Marine Draftsmen Association. Again, Congress recognizing that we need to accelerate submarine construction actually appropriated some wage improvement funds, which were incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement—30% wage increase over the next 5 years. The metal trades union, which had an earlier contract, was reopened to again match that level. And again, it's because, frankly, if we want to get people into the metal trades, we need to basically increase the entry-level wage rates as well as to retain workers who are further along. I have a column in the Connecticut Mirror, Collective Bargaining is Rebuilding America's Defense Industrial Base, which I ask to be admitted to the record. And again, that's an

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

without objection.

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT)SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, it's an example of where collective bargaining again helps individual workers, but it also provides a very efficient way to address critical needs in our economy and national defense. And General Counsel, former General Counsel Abruzzo, maybe you could comment on that.

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Thank you. Well, on that last point, I would say that, in 1935, the NLRA was enacted because employees lacked channels of communication with their employers. And Congress rightfully said, we need to empower workers here. We know there's strength in numbers. We need to make sure that they can collectively bargain through representatives of their free choosing and improve their wages and working conditions. And Congress rightfully understood that through those improved negotiated wages and benefits, it would help the failing economy. So it helps everyone to have workers that have power to improve their wages, but also other working conditions: making sure there's no discrimination in the workplace, making sure there's safe workplaces, making sure there's a grievance and arbitration proceeding so that workplace conflict can be diminished. That is what the NLRA was enacted for, to promote productive labor-management relations. And I will just say one other thing. If there is no independent NLRA and NLRB anymore, then I fear and I expect that workers are going to go back to the pre-1935 self-help activities of mass protests and mass strikes to gain or regain the benefits that they earned through their hard work, retake governance of our country, and get the dignity and respect and recognition that they deserve for the value that they add to their employer's operations.

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT)SPEAKER_14

And build a stronger Navy. Um, could you just respond to, again, the comments were made about some of your actions as general General Counsel?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Yeah, I mean, my goal over my almost 30 years at the agency has always been to educate workers about their rights and employers and unions about their obligations under the statute, and to protect workers' rights to freely associate with one another to improve their circumstances.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Now I recognize Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania for your questions.

Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA)SPEAKER_00

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm always a bit worried about the misinformation and then the propaganda that exists and floats around, not just in this hearing, but also from the administration as a whole about unions and about what the NLRB is, especially using the phrase restoring balance when we're talking about the power dynamics between a corporate conglomerate and a conglomerate of bus drivers or nurses or fast-food workers. I think that is nasty work. There is a blatant attempt to mischaracterize what a union is and why they're necessary in the first place. So to clear it up, we all understand that an individual worker has very little, if any, power at all over a corporation or a CEO, and any other framing is disingenuous. People in power in this country would never answer to the needs of an individual, say, janitor alone. But when all the janitors come together in a union and work as a group, that's when the power, the boss, the worker—the corporation has to respond. Power attacks unions because they create a more fair and balanced economy in favor of working-class people over the 1%. Unions help us address the racial and gender wage gap. And right now, nothing is more frightening to a wannabe autocrat than organized labor and an educated electorate. Corporations have grown accustomed to having an open lane to influence politics however they see fit, and they want you to think that it's unfair that their political influence might be challenged by some workers, by working-class people who've come together to advocate for themselves. Organized labor in this country isn't about big business versus big union, and there's no such thing as big union. It's working-class people versus the people in power, or David and Goliath, as some of us know it. But that's why they don't want you to unionize. That's why they want to divide union workers versus nonunion workers, because their biggest fear is that all the Davids recognize that we're on the exact same team. And they realize that if we were to work together against the Goliath, then we would be significantly stronger. So it makes a lot of sense why the rich and the powerful people want to attack unions and the NLRB, who enforces workers' rights to form a union. It's not because they think working-class people have more power than a corporation, but it's because they're terrified of what would happen if they actually did. Over the last 20 years, regional NLRB offices across the country have lost 50% of their staff, while cases have skyrocketed. In my district, Pittsburgh, NLRB Region 6 office has experienced 30% decrease in staff without any reduction in the caseload. And the Trump administration has, of course, deputized DOGE to cut worker protections and remove the board member to prevent the board from maintaining or establishing a quorum. Nurses at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Magee's Hospital have consistently advocated for investing in bedside nursing, retaining qualified nurses, more direct care for their patients. UPMC met their concerns with mass layoffs. And they paid their former CEO $30 million, and then leasing a $50 million private jet. At the end of May, the nurses filed for a union election. But UPMC, our state's largest private employer, is trying to exploit the national NLRB's Trump-induced dysfunction to claim our local NLRB office can't hold a union election. Legal precedent and practice affirm that local labor boards are fully authorized to hold elections, even if the national board lacks a quorum. Ms. Abruzzo, is that your understanding?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Yes. The regional offices can, of course, conduct elections and certify the results. The the issue is that there's too many employers out there that are abusing the processes and then pushing it to the board by appealing when a union wins an election, and that appeal then gets stuck at the board because there's no quorum.

Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA)SPEAKER_00

have two questions. We have one minute. So just very quickly, if you could speak to the broader impact the NLRB understaffing has had on workers over the last decade and what the further cuts may do. And also, if you could compare the NLRB's record on fairness and transparency during your time and your tenure to now would be very helpful.

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Thank you. And so in terms of the funding, so we have the— I say we— the NLRB has the same case intake that is now, or around that, than they had in 2011, and yet the staffing in the field offices has decreased by 62%. So that means that these really dedicated, talented board agents are doing more with less. They are trying to process cases as fast as they can, but they just cannot keep up because of the chronic understaffing. And I don't understand the two current agency heads asking for less money when the agency needs even more money to ensure that they can protect workers in

Rep. Summer Lee (D-PA)SPEAKER_00

this country. I appreciate that. I think we could all go on and on about the power imbalance, but I will yield back and thank you for the time.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Now, I call on my friend, Ranking Member Scott, for your question, sir.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Abruzzo, is it true that members of unions tend to get higher wages, work in safer workplaces, and get better benefits?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Yes, it's absolutely true.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

Do union members— does membership in a union reduce the racial and gender disparities in pay?

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Yes.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

And do, in a right-to-work state, if a person is not a member of a union but a union pays for experts to negotiate a good contract, do the non-union members who didn't pay any dues get the benefits of higher wages and the other benefits?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

They absolutely do.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

Mr. King, if a union wins an election fair and square, what happens if an employer just stonewalls and refuses to effectively negotiate without the fine provisions in the Hawley legislation? What happens?

Mr. Roger KingSPEAKER_07

Well, right now, Mr. Scott, a Section 8(a)(5) charge would be filed by the union for failure to bargain in good faith, and that charge is then processed by the agency. I just want to make one comment. We're— the hR Policy Association and employers in generally want a quorum on the board. We want the board to function, Mr. Scott, and in the case you just mentioned, we want the board to expeditiously proceed. We urge in our testimony that the president fill two vacancies on the board at present.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

But even with those vacancies, if the— without a requirement, then you're up to what is good faith. And if the employer really doesn't want a contract, winning the election didn't do much good. Isn't

Mr. Roger KingSPEAKER_07

Mr. Scott, I would agree with you

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

unless you get that nice language that Mr. Hawley is Senator Hawley is proposing, that he took right out of the PRO Act.

Mr. Roger KingSPEAKER_07

The PRO Union Act, I think, Mr. Scott.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

That that comes right out of the NLRA. Hey, we're supposed to be encouraging collective bargaining.

Mr. Roger KingSPEAKER_07

Mr. Scott, we would agree with you that contract negotiations, first contracts, could be done better. The Hawley approach is not the way to go.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

Ms. Abruzzo, if a business is committing an unfair labor practice, like firing a person for organizing unions, what are the sanctions?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Well, currently there are no sanctions because there is no functioning board.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

So

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

workers that are fired— and we see this, or the agency has seen this quite often, that when employers get wind of an organizing drive, they try to nip it in the bud by firing the main union activists, for example. And right now, without a full quorum, workers, fired workers, can't get the relief that they

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

deserve. And even if there were to be a quorum, what would be the sanctions?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

If there were to be sanctions, they would then have to come back. You know, they would be— an offer of reinstatement would have to be made, and they would get whatever back pay that they were owed, as well as any direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms that resulted from their

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

unemployment. Back pay minus what they made in the meanwhile?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Correct, right. While they had to work elsewhere, that would be deduct-- The interim earnings would be deducted. And I do just want to say one other thing: whether there becomes a quorum, as I-- as Mr. King just said that he also, or the HR Policy wishes there to be a quorum as well, when you don't have independent decision makers, that quorum can be lost at any time, because the president could just fire a decision maker who, whose decision he doesn't agree with. And that just creates chaos at workplaces where you could just keep losing quorums, because the president doesn't like the decisions being made.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

Can you say a word about captive audience meetings, how extensive they can be?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Yes. When I was at the agency— so first of all, I mean, knowledge is power, and employers bank on the lack of knowledge of employees, especially during nation organizing drives, and violate their rights by firing them, by holding these captive audience meetings where they are subjected to anti-union rhetoric by their employer, often combined with threats or interrogation and the

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

like. Whose choice is it to join a union? Is it the employees or the employer?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

It's the employees' choice, of course.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

And what did the employees— employers have to say about it?

Ms. Jennifer A. AbruzzoSPEAKER_12

Nothing.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I believe that concludes our questions. Thank you, panel, for your expert testimony today. Now I would recognize myself for a closing state— would you like to make a closing statement, Mr. Scott?

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

Sure.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

Okay, all right. I recognize our ranking member, Mr. Scott, for a closing statement.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And once again, I'd like to thank everyone for coming and thank our witnesses for speaking with us today, particularly Ms. Abruzzo, specifically for her testimony and good work on the NLRB. Committee Republicans would have you believe that labor unions are the enemy of workers, but as Ms. Abruzzo just testified, they do much better when they join a union. The fact is that the game has been rigged against workers, union and nonunion, for decades. Unions are popular with the American people because they enable workers to more strongly advocate for higher wages, safer workplaces, and better benefits. Right now, the fundamental right to unionize is in danger. The Trump administration's relentless attacks against the NLRB, its staff, and its independence are an attack on workers themselves. Without proper enforcement of the NLRA and independence of the NLRB, workers' rights are compromised. And these are the people who provide for their families and simply want to come home at the end of the day with their whole paycheck, healthy and safe, and they deserve to be protected by an agency that works for them, not for lawbreaking employers. Forming a union must be must be a protected right, not an endless fight. By gutting the NLRB and eliminating its quorum, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans undermine working people, businesses, the economy, and America as a whole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Chairman Rick Allen (R-GA)SPEAKER_04

I thank the Ranking Member— leader for yielding. And now I will offer my closing statement. Again, on behalf of the members of the subcommittee, I thank our witnesses for giving your perspective on how the NLRB can fulfill its mission. Restoring balance, ensuring fairness and transparency at the NLRB, I think, is a worthy cause. And I think we've made it clear today we've got some work to do there. Today's hearing makes clear that we need labor policies that put individual worker choice at the forefront with reasonable expectations for job creators. You know, it's hard to believe just 6 years ago we had the best economy in our lifetime. Workers' wages were increasing at a pace not seen before. And today we even have 7 million openings for jobs in this country. I don't And I think in this golden age, there's going to be great opportunity for workers if we can put the proper policies forward that will make us again the greatest economy in our lifetime, because folks, it's all about jobs, jobs, jobs, and opportunity. And I believe every American should be given that privilege and also the privilege to be an entrepreneur as well. And so that's what we're fighting for. As our witnesses testified today, the NLRB should implement policies that allow employees the freedom to choose how they want to be represented through the use of secret ballot elections and clear, predictable guidelines for employers. And I again emphasize secret ballot. The NLRB should also serve as a neutral authority on the issues of joint employment and independent contractor status. The Biden-Harris board, however, was not a fair or neutral agency. It put the interests of big labor first at every turn, and workers across America are paying for it today. I look forward to working with the members of this subcommittee and the administration to find much-needed solutions that advance worker and employer freedom. This hearing is about the worker. It's not anti— it's about workers, the people who have made this country. We didn't This body didn't create the greatest economy in our lifetime. It's our great workers that created the greatest economy in our lifetime. I would like to again thank our witnesses for taking time to testify before this subcommittee today. Without objection, there being no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned.