The five-member National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is tasked with interpreting and enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The agency is supposed to serve as a neutral arbiter of federal labor law.

• Balanced policies that reflect the NLRB’s original mission, to fairly interpret and enforce federal labor law.

• Legislation that preserves longstanding union election procedures by safeguarding the right of workers to make informed decisions about union representation, ensuring the ability of employers to communicate with their employees and protecting the privacy of workers and their families.

• Legal and legislative efforts to restore the joint employer standard that had been in place for more than 30 years under the NLRA.

• The NLRB’s final rule that implements “ambush”-style union representation elections. Such policies unfairly obstruct and silence employers while violating workers’ privacy and depriving them of valuable information.

• The NLRB’s decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, which expands joint employer liability under the NLRA.

• Any efforts by the NLRB to overturn balanced precedent or implement anti-employer policies and rulemakings.

Under the Obama administration, the NLRB issued controversial, anti-business rulemakings seeking to promote union organizing in the construction industry and  elsewhere at the expense of employers and employees.

Most notably, in 2014, the NLRB finalized its controversial “ambush” election rule, also known as Representation-Case Procedures. The rule drastically changed the process for NLRB-conducted elections in which employees may vote on whether they want to be represented by a union.

Under the Trump administration, in 2017, the NLRB issued a request for information, seeking public comment on whether the 2014 Election Rule should be kept as is, modified or rescinded entirely. ABC’s position is that the board should rescind the rule in whole or in significant part and return to the election procedures that were in effect and working well prior to the new rule’s adoption. ABC members have found the new rule’s requirements to be unduly burdensome for employers, unduly intrusive into employee privacy and unduly infringing on the rights of employers and employees to a fair pre-election process. In short, many of the concerns expressed by ABC about the new rule before it went into effect have proved to be true, according to the actual experience of ABC members and others under the new rule since it went into effect in April 2015.

In addition, under the Obama administration, the NLRB issued a decision in the Browning-Ferris Industries of California case that expanded joint employer liability under the NLRA to situations where a company has “indirect” control and “unexercised potential” control over the essential terms and conditions of employment of another company’s employees. The decision uproots 30 years of labor standards and imposes unnecessary barriers to and burdens on contractor and subcontractor relationships throughout the construction industry. ABC continues to advocate for legislative efforts to ​restore the joint employer standard that had been in place for more than 30 years, bringing stability back into the economy for contractors and subcontractors across the country.