NLRB Vows Faster Review Of Firings During Union Drives

WASHINGTON — The federal agency that oversees union elections plans to speed up its review of cases where employees are fired during union organizing drives.

The National Labor Relations Board said Thursday it would act more swiftly in seeking federal injunctions to get workers reinstated when officials believe a firing was illegal.

It is against the law to fire workers because they want to form a union. But some fired employees can wait months or years to get their cases resolved.

"Firing an employee in the middle of a union organizing campaign can quickly destroy the campaign by creating a climate of fear in the workplace," said Lafe Solomon, the NLRB's acting general counsel.

The move won praise from labor leaders, though they would prefer to see Congress pass legislation that imposes stiffer penalties against companies that intimidate or fire pro-union employees.

"Until we can fix our broken system, the least we can do is provide swift justice to workers illegally fired," said AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler.

Glenn Spencer, executive director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Workforce Freedom Initiative, called the decision another example of a board trying to tilt the balance in favor of unions under the Obama administration.

"They are trying to make it easier for unions to organize and harder for employers to defend themselves against union organizers," Spencer said.

Under current law, illegally fired workers are entitled to back pay. A bill backed by unions would require triple back pay for illegally fired workers and fine employers $20,000 per violation.

That bill – the Employee Free Choice Act – has stalled in Congress under threat of a GOP filibuster. Its most controversial provision would let unions organize by having a majority of workers sign cards instead of voting by secret ballot.

"There's a very concerted effort for unions to get as much as possible through the regulatory process what they couldn't get through Congress," Spencer said.

Comments

[UpNorthGuyWI]

10:59 AM on 10/08/2010

This is just another attempt to harass employers and a part of the hostile business climate employers face. If an employee who is organizing is fired and is fired because of that, there are provisions in place to protect that employee. The reality is that sometimes employees who are about to be fired for legitimate reasons "suddenly" try to claim they are organizing.

[gsmp]

11:07 AM on 10/01/2010

A number of years ago, I was hired at a non-union shop shortly after workers had attempted to unionize and failed. As soon as the big job, I had been hired to work on, was completed, ALL those employees (some of them with years at this company) involved were laid off and only a handful of newhires remained - at a much lower pay rate of course.

[andrew0823]

08:31 AM on 10/01/2010

"Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it". There was a reason why unions were formed. Today the middle class has been almost dismantled and unions are needed as much today as they were back in the day. Employers have the upper hand and what we need is a counter balance to that power and that counter balance are unions. With fewer factory workers and more service related workers employers have been taking advantage of their employees. PASS CARD CHECK!

[cwamember]

07:24 AM on 10/01/2010

WOW! In response to the NLRB's decision to speed up the review process the Chamber says;

"They are trying to make it easier for unions to organize and harder for employers to defend themselves against union organizers," Spencer said.

So Spencer, you shamelessly admit that firing workers illegally is part of the means employers defend themselves against union organizers?

Unbelievable!

CWA13500

[UpNorthGuyWI]

10:56 AM on 10/08/2010

Except he didn't say that.

[PCMartin]

12:37 AM on 10/01/2010

Not to flog a dead horse, but how many times has the Democratic majority *we* put into the Senate in 2008 screwed us over by refusing to challenge the constitutionality of the current filibuster and cloture rules? One begins to wonder exactly whose side they are on...

[SamEllison]

08:42 PM on 09/30/2010

So the clown running for the Senate from Connecticut wants to lower the minimum wage.
Well I guess the baggers don't care but Unions made this country and we are going to need
them to bring back the middle class. Buyer beware.


Union yes, OCAW 1980 - 1990

[dems08]

07:28 PM on 09/30/2010

I hate the chamber of horrors of commerce!