“Examining the Policies and Priorities of the NLRB”
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsMark DeSaulnier
Let me repeat that, 90,000 American workers for every one NLRB caseworker. Workers are being mistreated, unions are being undermined by big corporations and the Trump administration's only response to the enormous backlog of cases before the NLRB is to recognize them. Guess that's a good step. Workers are their union and attacking a union is an attack on the workers who make up that union. Forming a union must be a right, not a fight.
To restore workers' powers, Congress must pass the Protecting the Right to Organize, the PRO Act, fully fund the NLRB and protect its independence from political influence. Finally I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from nurses at St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital in Chicago, Illinois alleging retaliatory actions by management against nurses nurses nurses seeking to recognize. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Without objection.
Speaker 1
I yield back. All right. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman yields back pursuant to committee rule 8C. 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 PM 14 days after this hearing.
And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous materials noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I will now turn to the introduction of our distinguished witnesses. Our first witness is the Honorable James R. Murphy, Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C. Our second witness is the Honorable Crystal S. Carey, General Counsel of the NLRB. 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. The clock will count down from three minutes as committee members have many questions for you. However, pursuant to Committee Rule 8D and committee practice, we 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. I will first recognize Chairman Murphy for your testimony.
James R. Murphy
Thank you, Chairman Allen. And good morning to everyone, including Ranking Member DeSaulnier and I see both Chairman Walberg and Ranking Member Scott are here as well. And to all the committee, again, thank you for the invitation to testify today. Before President Trump asked me to serve as a board member, then as board chairman, I spent more than 47 years at the NLRB prior to retiring in December 2021. It's a tremendous honor and a somewhat daunting challenge to return and serve in this new role as agency head.
In doing so, I benefit from the knowledge that every day the agency's employees work in the regions nationwide and in our headquarters building, and they work hard to support us in safeguarding the statutory rights of parties subject to our jurisdiction. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, my immediate top priority upon taking office is to reduce a case backlog pending review by board members. That backlog significantly increased in the nearly one-year period when the board lacked the three-member quorum required to decide cases. Consequently, when I and Member Scott Meyer were sworn in on January 7th of this year, there were 591 cases pending our review. That number also greatly exceeded any number of cases in a board-level backlog in recent times.
I also want to emphasize that I do not view this backlog problem as a partisan issue. I and Member Meyer have worked collaboratively with our colleague David Prouty to address this issue. We have focused on the common initial goal of prioritizing the processing of oldest cases, representation election cases, and what I have characterized as low-hanging fruit, that is the more uncomplicated unfair labor practice cases before us. I'm pleased to say that by the end of last week, the board has reduced the overall number of pending cases from 591 to 387. It has done so in spite of the fact that 152 newly arrived cases were assigned, meaning that we have actually disposed of 352 cases in a five-month period.
This production is unprecedented in recent times. I note that there have been very few dissents in the decisions issued so far. Part of the reason for that is, as mentioned, obviously attributable to repeated statements by me and Member Meyer that we will continue to adhere to the long-standing non-partisan board tradition requiring a three-member majority to overrule existing precedent.
My goal is straightforward: to promote a board that works efficiently, expeditiously, and in a way that earns the confidence of employees, employers, and unions. Doing so will best fulfill our commitment to protecting the statutory rights of each, while ensuring that our administrative agency processes are cost-effective and accountable. I look forward to working with the subcommittee on these priorities. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I welcome your questions.
Thank you, Chairman Murphy. I now recognize General Counsel Kerry for your testimony.
Crystal S. Carey
Good morning, Chairman Allen, Ranking Member DeSaulnier, and the committee members. Thank you for having me here. It is my duty and that of anyone serving as General Counsel to protect workers' rights by investigating unfair labor practice charges and making determinations on them promptly. Otherwise, we are not effectuating the National Labor Relations Act as intended. The backlog we face today prevents us from fulfilling our mission.
Therefore, my chief priority as General Counsel is to address the backlog and implement sustainable operational and case-handling measures to ensure cases are addressed in a timely fashion going forward. I am grateful to be here today to share where we stand, how we got here, and what we're doing to reduce the average length of time that a case is open before a decision is made on its merits. What I have realized in my first five months on the job is that the previous administration placed a greater emphasis on reversing established precedent than on improving operational efficiency and providing timely responses to parties before the NLRB. The focus on overturning longstanding precedent without a similar focus on how to process cases in conditions that deteriorated for our board agents every day, combined with decreased staffing, led to the historic backlog that I walked into on day one. Beginning that day, we initiated a comprehensive review beginning with efforts to enhance case handling, conduct investigations more efficiently, and minimize delays in acquiring initial evidence from involved parties.
Our dedicated employees have been working full throttle to get our house in order. I'm proud to share that since I took office, despite understaffing, our incredible employees have completed the investigation of 7,066 cases that were pending as of January 7th, a nearly 40% reduction in cases that were awaiting determination in a regional office when I was sworn in. Moreover, between January 7th and June 2nd of this year, we've processed 13,006 cases versus 12,491 new filings, a reduction of the backlog by 515 cases, about 108 a month. We're also proud to have closed or completed investigations in 4,100 legacy cases, those filed between 21 and 24, and case movement across the agency has also been high with 8,500 ULP cases closed, investigations closed in 3,300 other cases, and 1,100 employee representation cases closed. We also continue to work on more current cases filed between 25 and 26, processing more than 7,400 cases in that time period.
As part of this plan, I recently implemented an initiative to redistribute 3,500 cases among regional offices. In less than a month, the investigations in 281 of those cases have been completed. While as you can see we are attacking the backlog from multiple angles, and I'm sure I'll have more questions on that today, I am optimistic about our progress and the future, but it's important to note that the situation was not created overnight.
The backlog accumulated over a period of several years, escalating to unprecedented levels between 2021 and 2025, and it will take some time to fully rein in this backlog. Additionally, we continue to receive new charges every day at a record pace, and all while we are 43% understaffed compared to where we were 10 years. We're excited to have hiring authority to hire nearly 100 new employees this fiscal year, however, that number does not approach the number of employees we need. Before closing, I would be remiss in not pointing out that I learned this morning that despite OMB proposing 285 million for the agency's fiscal year budget, fiscal year 27, the House Appropriations bill introduced an initial proposed budget of only 200 million, which is far below what we'll need and would require a reduction in full-time employees from between 300 and 460 full-time employees. I hope that the information that we can provide to you today will encourage you to speak to your colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and advocate for our agency, for our employees, and for workers who depend on us to resolve their workplace disputes.
I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you, General Counsel Kerry, for your testimony. Under committee rule nine, we will now question the witnesses under the five-minute rule. I'll recognize myself for five minutes. Mrs. Kerry, with your background in both the private sector and the NLRB, you have a unique perspective on the timeline of labor negotiations. What are the primary factors and complexities that influence the time it takes for an employer and a union to reach their first contract?
Crystal S. Carey
Thank you for the question. Every case is different, every company is different, every bargaining unit is different, so I don't think there is one single factor that would influence the time it takes for a collective bargaining agreement to be reached in an initial contract. From my perspective and from my experience, I can tell you that there are many things that come into play after a unit is certified or voluntarily recognized by an employer. That includes extensive requests for information relating to the specific employer, the industry, the business, the wants, the needs of the employees in the union. Those take time to respond to, and we need to provide times for the union also to put together their proposals.
So in terms of complexity, every every single bargaining unit and every negotiation's going to be different.
Speaker 6
What are the most effective strategies or frameworks for ensuring that the statutory obligation to bargain in good faith leads to a timely finalized first contract?
Crystal S. Carey
I mean, from a practical standpoint, it means parties talking to each other and collaborating with each other and answering each other's requests for information, which can go both ways. It also requires that, you know, when a charge is brought to us alleging that there is some type of bad faith bargaining, that there's surface bargaining, that there's regressive bargaining, that we have the capability in terms of staffing and we have the runway to be able to investigate those cases in a quicker manner so that we can get results. The outcome of an unfair labor practice case alleging bad faith bargaining can have an impact on many, many decisions in bargaining, but also can result in things, you know, in the event that there's a strike, depending on whether there's an unfair labor practice or not involved, can also impact whether or not replacements can be used and what types of replacements. So the ability of the General Counsel's office and our field office to be able to make a timely decision on any unfair labor practices alleging bad faith bargaining is crucial.
Speaker 1
Thank you.
Chairman Murphy, the board has a tradition of requiring three votes to reverse precedent, and you have signaled your intention to keep this tradition. Could you elaborate on this tradition?
James R. Murphy
Yes, Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned, it's a long-standing tradition. I have checked and I have found no aberration from that particular tradition since the passage of the Taft-Hartley amendments in 1947. It is not statutorily required, but I think implicit in the expansion of the board from three to five members, which permitted the board to decide routine cases on a three-member basis, a subpanel basis as we call it, implicit in that is the notion that the board as a body of a whole should overrule precedent, and that body of a whole would be three members regardless of whether there are actually five sitting members.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Chairman Murphy, since the time the board reached a quorum this year, you have been making steady progress in processing cases. In the past five months alone, the board has issued over 200 decisions. There have been prior years when the board only issued 240 decisions. Will you talk about the urgency of confirming additional board members and what is the cost in concrete terms of continued vacancies to the workers and employers awaiting resolution of labor disputes?
James R. Murphy
Again, as I made a reference to the five-member system where there would be subpanels where only three board members would be disposing of routine cases and the other one or two board members would be simply noting off at the end unless they wish to participate. So an additional board member, in this case nominee Jim Macy, it would be advantageous to have him present, understanding that any board member, including myself, who arrives at the board does have to go through a learning curve and to get acquainted with staff, but the sooner the better that we get reinforcements, if you will, the better I think we will be able to process the additional, still much too high, a backlog that we are confronted with.
Speaker 1
Good. Well, thank you for your work. And now I will call on Mrs. Lee from Pennsylvania for your five minutes of questioning.
Summer Lee
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This administration has waged unconscionable attacks on workers. Our federal workers were illegally fired, our VA workers had their collective bargaining agreements terminated, our teachers are being accused of indoctrinating kids, our healthcare workers are being blamed for the failures of corporate monopolies. Our country can only be great when our workers are supported, and the NLRB has a duty to make things right for workers in our country. I represent a district in Southwestern Pennsylvania that knows firsthand how important the NLRB is.
It backed up the steelworkers in the 1930s and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette workers during one of the longest strikes in recent history. But when Trump removed Win Wilcox from the NLRB, it stripped the board of a quorum for almost an entire year, and that left workers' livelihoods in the balance. Corporate monopolies in my district and across the country immediately capitalized on the lack of a quorum to try to prevent workers from unionizing. The Trump administration has repeatedly defied the National Labor Relations Act and other legal precedent to undermine the NLRB's independence. So now that you finally have a quorum, my constituents need the NLRB to do its job, which cannot happen if you're not acting as an independent agency.
Mr. Murphy, do you agree that the NLRB must be an independent agency?
Speaker 8
I agree that the board traditionally has been an independent agency, it continues to be an independent agency. I can assure you that I have had no conversations with the White House involving specific policy matters or involving any specific case. There is, as we all know, there is a pending Supreme Court case involving the discharge...
Summer Lee
One provision in that executive order was for the NLRB to have a White House liaison on staff. Does the NLRB currently have a White House liaison?
Not that I'm aware of.
Summer Lee
Since you believe that the NLRB should be an independent agency, will you oppose the creation of a White House liaison position?
James R. Murphy
I will certainly discuss it if the President orders that somebody to come to our office as a White House liaison. I'm not sure what position I would be in to oppose that other than to resign.
Summer Lee
Okay. Being an independent agency is the core of the NLRB's ability to protect workers. But we know that calling the NLRB unconstitutional is a standard tactic routinely used by Trump's friends at corporations like Amazon, SpaceX, to union bust. Ms. Kerry, your former law firm, Morgan Lewis, represents some of these corporations and arguing that the NLRB is unconstitutional. Morgan Lewis paved the way for some of the most radical challenges to the NLRB that functionally killed workers' rights to organize in several states across the country.
Now you're making the same arguments that the NLRB is unconstitutional while serving as its general counsel. Ms. Kerry, how can workers in my district trust you to protect their right to unionize over the interest of corporations you've helped to union bust?
Crystal S. Carey
I'm actually a little confused at why you think that I continue in this role to make arguments that the NLRB is unconstitutional. So do you have information to share with me on where and when I've made those arguments?
Your past work.
Speaker 11
Okay, so you don't believe it's unconstitutional? You've changed your stance?
Crystal S. Carey
I am... I never took that position. Just because the law firm I work with represented clients that took it does not mean that I took that position.
Crystal S. Carey
I believe that in the role that I am serving in today, I have enforced board orders and have argued for the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act.
Speaker 10
And you believe that workers can trust you that you will protect their right to organize? Because what my question was is how can they trust that?
Crystal S. Carey
Ma'am, I think that everything that I just talked about in my opening statement and the directives that I've given regional directors to process cases, to get cases moving, the fact that we've transferred cases to regions that have more ability to get to cases on a faster basis and to get answers to workers, yes, I absolutely think workers can trust me to get answers to the questions that they bring to us in a much quicker manner than my predecessor did.
Summer Lee
Thanks, and I hope that that is the case because workers are depending on this. Every worker in this country has a right to a safe environment, fair pay, healthcare, and leave care. Unions and collective bargaining are workers' best shots at having those enforced. So I will continue to stand up to the agency who are supposed to be backing workers. I hope that we can expect that you will join us in that support and workers are relying on you keeping your word today.
I thank you so much for your time and I yield back.
Speaker 12
Gentlelady yields and now call on our chairman of the full committee, Mr. Walberg, for his five minutes of questioning.
Tim Walberg
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the panel for being here. Mr. Murphy, in the 1970 case of H.K. Porter versus NLRB, the Supreme Court said about collective bargaining, and I quote, "It was recognized from the beginning that agreement might in some cases be impossible, and it was never intended that the government would in such cases step in, become a party to the negotiations, and impose its own views of a desirable settlement," end quote. Do you agree with this statement about the government's role in collective bargaining?
James R. Murphy
I do. And in fact, we are obliged to follow that particular Supreme Court edict.
James R. Murphy
It's not statutorily required. It can be required as a consequence of parties agreeing at the beginning of negotiations to do so, or it can also be required if it's something in the union's bylaws that the employer is aware of. I really don't have any personal experience as to whether or not it's important in any particular instance for to have those votes. I do think that the easiest thing to do is have the parties at the bargaining table to have full authority to conclude a collective bargaining agreement.
Tim Walberg
Certainly parties ought to be involved, shouldn't they? You would hope that the sides would be heard as a former steelworker myself. I understand that some of my conditions were far better than my father's as a result of negotiations that went on between parties. Thank you. Ms. Abruzzo, your predecessor used the General Counsel's enforcement discretion almost exclusively in ways that advanced union organizing.
How are you exercising enforcement discretion differently?
Crystal S. Carey
Thank you for the question. We have reiterated to the regions that all cases, regardless of whether they were filed by an individual, by a union against an employer, or by an employer, should be investigated fairly and efficiently and consistently regardless of who the parties are that are involved.
Tim Walberg
Are there categories of cases such as charges filed by workers against unions that you believe were downgraded under prior leadership and that deserve more attention today?
Crystal S. Carey
Unfortunately, I think that those cases were not processed as quickly as they should have been and were potentially categorized behind cases that involved charges against employers.
Correct.
Tim Walberg
Thank you. Mr. Marvin, the Biden-Harris Board's decision in the Amazon captive audience case prohibited employers from holding meetings at which they express views on unionization. However, as I believe you know, the Supreme Court, prior boards, and the text of the National Labor Relations Act explicitly protect employer speech. How do you square this decision with well-established free speech rights of employers?
James R. Murphy
We are likely, if we do not already have cases involving that particular prior board decision pending before us, so that I cannot specifically comment about it. But you're absolutely right, sir, that the Act through Section 8(c) incorporates the concept of First Amendment protections for employee speech, for employer speech.
Employer and employee speech.
And employee speech, absolutely, sir.
Tim Walberg
How might a full board be able to ensure that employer free speech rights are protected going forward?
James R. Murphy
Well, as I've mentioned, we have our tradition that it takes three board members to overrule particular precedents, or theoretically an additional board member would could make a could create a majority to overrule that particular precedent that you raised.
The wisdom of a majority.
That's correct, sir.
Speaker 1
Chairman yields, now call on Mr. Williams of New York for your five minutes of questioning.
Brandon Williams
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to both of you for being here today. Obviously the positions you hold are very important as Chair and General Counsel of the Board to the working people of this country, and I thank you both for your service. As you may know, or as you know, excuse me, when workers choose to organize and advocate for themselves, time and again they face the same obstacles, which could be threats, retaliation, endless delays, and sometimes even closure of an entire job site, which did occur in my district. These anti-union tactics have been tried all across the country, including in NY-22, and I've seen them play out firsthand.
It's exactly why, as the Chairman stated, we need a fair, well-functioning, and non-partisan NLRB to protect workers' rights and ensure that unfair labor practices are fully investigated and remedied.
The last year has been a turbulent one. Shortly after the president took office, he took the hostile and unprecedented action of firing board member Gwen Wilcox, leaving the board without a quorum for nearly an entire year. Not only did this limit NLRB's operations, but it also threatened the agency's independence. Case logs, backlogs of cases did exist, and I appreciate the acknowledgment and also the acknowledgment that after the Trump administration occurred this second time, that not having a quorum did also contribute to those backlogs of cases. Certainly that worsened the problem, and some employers clearly took advantage of the situation by appealing cases to a board that could not function without a quorum, leaving workers with little recourse and undermining their organizing efforts.
So as we move forward, there's a lot of work to ensure that cases and election petitions are processed quickly. I appreciate that in both of your testimonies today, you indicated that addressing backlogs is a priority and substantial improvements have been made in reducing those backlogs. We can find agreement there, but I do want to address that how we are reducing these backlogs, making that number go down significantly, we should always assure that workers' rights are of the highest priority. So my questions are for you, Ms. Kerrie. In response to this issue, your written testimony states that you are seeking reasonable settlements on pending cases.
Given what we've seen so far, I do have some concerns about what that looks like. In the past five months, your office has given Amazon a bailout in one of the most consequential cases before the agency and let SpaceX off the hook for enforcement from enforcement by the NLRB. So that being said, historically, across past administrations, the NLRB operated by a rule of thumb that any settlement less than 80% of the total backpay owed was unacceptable. So can you address how you're abiding by or not abiding by that traditional practice?
Crystal S. Carey
Thank you. The settlement process is really something that's incredibly important to being able to resolve a majority of these cases that are pending in our backlog list. My predecessor, as you, I don't think you mentioned, but there were some constraints that were placed on regions and parties to engage in settlement discussions regarding pending unfair labor practices. So the 80% threshold that you discussed was thrown out the window. Anything that was less than 100% plus additional remedies that I would define as extraordinary, and quite frankly, that's not just me, that's what the board and the courts have said in relation to those types of remedies she sought as well, prevented parties from being able to engage in meaningful settlement discussions.
So I have told every regional office that I have visited, and I have several more to visit and I've enjoyed those visits, I don't start at 80% of anything.
When we're negotiating settlements. However, the guidance that I have given, and I think this is consistent with the statute and what we are supposed to do to enforce the National Labor Relations Act, is to encourage parties to discuss and work out resolutions that are good for them. The majority of our settlements are bilateral settlement agreements. That means the charging party and the charged party have agreed on the terms of the settlement. You mentioned one of two unilateral settlements that my office has accepted.
Brandon Williams
Understood. Is there, when those two parties are engaging in these settlements, do you intervene in making sure there is a floor, a minimum threshold for that settlement? Oh, am I over? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Virginia Foxx
The gentleman yields and now I call on our Chairman Emeritus, Dr. Fox of North Carolina, for your five minutes of questioning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Kerry, in the case Communications Workers of America v. Beck, Supreme Court held that non-members of a union cannot be required to pay for union political expenses to keep their jobs, but unions are automatically seizing money for politics from non-members unless they object and jump through union-created hoops. Would it not be more consistent with the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act and the principles articulated in Supreme Court decisions such as Beck for unions to collect funds for political activities from non-members only when those individuals have affirmatively consented, excuse me, to paying for such expenses?
Crystal S. Carey
This is a really important issue and it's something that my office has actually received oral argument on since being sworn in in January. It's definitely an issue that we see repeated and we see issues come up constantly with this exact, you know, issue of whether you have to opt in, opt out, is basically what we've heard some questions about. I think that the proposals that you've given would be really great options. I do think that given the historic backlog and the way that cases are being processed, it would take a long time to come up with that type of resolution. My hope is that we can encourage parties through a different method to be clear up front on what options are available to employees, whether that's at the time that they're initiating into a new employer, if it's a time in which they have a certification, where employees basically have the availability to see what options are available.
Do they want to be a full member? Do they want to be a non-payer? What is it? I've analogized to what it looks like when I get my Costco membership renewal form every year. And it's, do you want to be a platinum member, a gold member, a bronze member, and you know, these are the benefits that come with each of those levels of membership.
And I think providing that clarity to employees up front and providing them that information would help us in terms of reducing the number of cases that come before us, but most importantly, it provides employees with clarity as to what they are agreeing to, what they are getting in result and in response to their selection. And I hope that in the end, you know, we are able to work out and provide some guidance that we think are completely in line with long-standing law on relation to Beck and the window periods and all of those types of issues that come with that. But I think that information up front for employees is what's most critical.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you very much. Mr. Murphy, under former General Counsel Abruzzo, the Biden-Harris NLRB tried to overturn 100 years' worth of precedent, including many that were established or reaffirmed on a bipartisan basis across dozens of doctrinal areas. The practical consequences was that regional offices, administrative law judges, and the board itself were consumed by grappling with novel, aggressive legal theories rather than resolving the ordinary disputes that workers and employers brought to the agency. In your assessment, how much of the agency's current caseload challenge is attributable to the deliberate allocation of resources away from retail cases resolution and toward ideological agenda setting?
James R. Murphy
I don't have any detailed information to answer that question with respect to the impact on the board caseload, and I have no information at all with respect to the impact on regional operations. Based on my long-standing experience at the agency, however, whenever the board is considering overruling significant precedent, it takes time and staff counsel away from working on regular cases. With a progressive overall reduction in staff members in the recent years, there's a greater likelihood of an adverse impact on overall productivity. Having said that, I want to emphasize that the massive case backlog currently pending at the board when I arrived was far more attributable, I think, to the loss of quorum than to any other issue.
Virginia Foxx
So I'm assuming then the confirmation of another board member could help you clear the case backlog.
I certainly hope so.
Virginia Foxx
Ms. Kerry, when you took office in January, the non-postal employer docket carried roughly 16,000 open unfair labor practice charges, more than half of them over a year old. Before General Counsel Abruzzo's era, the agency maintained a stable inventory of roughly 5,800 to 6,000 open charges. Can you explain what you found when you arrived and what your assessment is of how long it will take to return the board to pre-2021 inventory levels at the current rate of closure?
Crystal S. Carey
I found a mess, quite frankly. There were so many cases that were prioritized to be sent to advice because the former general counsel wanted to overturn precedent. The cases were being stalled out in regions repeatedly. That combined with, as you mentioned, the reduction in staffing has really hit hard in the regions and in our ability to impact the regional decision-making process. So even with all of the, you know, enhancements that we're putting in place, if we remain at the same staffing levels, it will be years before we are able to clear the backlog.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our witnesses.
Speaker 25
The gentlelady yields, and now I call Mr. Khanna from California for your five minutes of questions.
Ro Khanna
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Kerry, under the National Labor Relations Act, what rights do workers have under Section 8? Under Section 8?
Crystal S. Carey
Well, Section 8 would discuss the things in terms of unfair labor practices that may occur. So they have the right to file charges alleging that the employer has violated the National Labor Relations Act or that the union has engaged in things like failure to represent them in their duty of fair representation.
Speaker 23
Okay, so both in terms of, let's say, inaction or adverse act by the employer or the union. Let's say an employee is fired for trying to organize a union in their workplace, something that I'm sure you've seen during your time at the NLRB, you're nodding. Can an employee file a lawsuit themselves if they are harmed by an unfair labor practice, which this would probably constitute?
Yes, they can.
Crystal S. Carey
So they have a number of options. Obviously, before us, they would be able to contact an information officer, they could come into a local office or go online and file an unfair labor practice charge. Sometimes it's really helpful for workers to reach out, and I encourage that, to talk to our field staff in the information office so that they can help walk them through the charge filing process to make sure that they're identifying critically in the charge itself the specific unfair labor practices that they're alleging have occurred.
Speaker 24
Okay, but under the National Labor Relations Act, workers cannot file an unfair labor practice claim through private right of action.
Do I understand that right?
That's correct.
Crystal S. Carey
Unless there's other allegations of discriminatory conduct, and depending on the type of work that they have, they may be able to have a state claim as well.
Speaker 21
But discriminatory conduct is a different thing than an unfair labor practice.
Speaker 23
Okay. So the NLRB is again, under the law, is the only way they can seek a solution. They can't go through a private right of action. They can't sue by themselves in the court. They have to go through NLRB.
Speaker 23
Yeah, for unfair labor practice, that's what I'm talking about. Which is a big thing. It's a wide category, there's a lot of stuff that can happen. That means that when there is a backlog of cases, workers are getting no recourse when it comes to unfair labor practice. Right?
Speaker 23
Well, they're getting no recourse at that point because they can't go to the courts, they have to go through the NLRB. And so when the NLRB has been unable to process these cases because of the lack of a quorum, that's a problem for the workers, not for the employer. Certainly it's for the unions that represent them, right?
Crystal S. Carey
That's correct. I just want to clarify, so I think the lack of quorum in relation to cases that are backlogged before the board is a little different because that does not prevent the regional offices from still conducting unfair labor practice.
Speaker 23
Okay, so that's where I want to go next. In 2023, there was approximately one full-time NLRB employee for every 90,000 workers under its jurisdiction. Is this enough staff to process the number of claims that you receive or even to address the backlog?
Speaker 23
Okay, thank you. That's a very frank answer. How have delays in case resolution impacted American workers' confidence that the government will protect their right to organize?
Crystal S. Carey
Yeah, I mean, as I said in my opening statement, I don't think we're fulfilling our mission if we're not timely getting responses.
Speaker 23
So you're not fulfilling the mission. And I get it, and I think the staffing has something to do with it. Over the last 20 years, regional offices have lost 50% of their staff while unfair labor practice and union representation cases have skyrocketed over the last few years. Do you believe the NLRB needs more funding and staff to carry out its responsibilities in a timely manner?
Crystal S. Carey
I think if we want to hit the backlog that we need to to get resolution to the American workers, yes.
Speaker 23
Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your answer. How much funding and staff does the agency need to process cases and election petitions in a timely manner, do you think?
Speaker 32
You can get back to me. But you've said this is a big deal that you've said that you need more staff.
It is.
Speaker 23
President Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's vicious campaign to gut the federal workforce slashed NLRB's workforce by 10% in 2020 alone. I understand that the NLRB recently posted a series of job openings. How many positions is the administration allowing you to hire?
Speaker 27
I believe we've posted for approximately 100 vacancies so far, and I believe we're up into 167 total.
Speaker 23
Still, I still think that's a fraction of what you need. What else are you doing to ensure that the NLRB can continue to hire staff?
Crystal S. Carey
So, I mean, we obviously are working on the first budget that Jim and I have actual input into, which is FY28. We are reviewing and providing input on the OMB budget for FY27. And as I said in my opening statement, you know, unfortunately the House appropriations bill that was put forth in the first proposal is 74 or 84 million less than what OMB proposed for the board. So we're hoping that being here today and answering your questions, you'll reach out to your colleagues to encourage more funding for us.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back, and I see that our witnesses, our very own Trump appointees, are saying that we need more staffing at the NLRB. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Chairman Murphy, General Counsel Abruzzo, thank you for being here with us today. As you both know, the NLRA states that if a union can recruit 30% of employees in a particular workplace to sign authorization forms stating that they wish to be represented by a union, then the NLRB verifies the forms and orders a secret ballot election. The NLRA goes on to say that a majority of the workplace's eligible employees must vote yes to have a union represent them in collective bargaining negotiations. However, the statute's vagueness on the term majority allows these elections to be decided based on the number of votes cast no matter how many eligible employees participate in the election.
Thank the gentleman. Yielding, I call on Dr. Foxx on the full committee for her five minutes of questions.
This can lead to absurd situations such as the unionization election at the Virginia defense contractor Kerberos International. Only one worker out of eight who were eligible voted to give union control of all of the workers. A similar situation happened in Washington, D.C. at the security firm Securitas. Only one worker out of seven who were eligible voted, giving the union control of the whole workplace. Union organizers can easily abuse this system, focusing on a small number of workers to ensure a union victory.
Trader Joe's employee Michael Alcorn testified before Congress that, quote, "After an organizer realized I wasn't on board, they told me that they couldn't answer any more questions and that they were going to devote their attention to those workers who would be with them and help them win." This is not workplace democracy. Chairman Murphy, do you think this is problematic that only one worker can unionize a workplace?
No, it is not.
James R. Murphy
It's concerning. I think it's an aberration. I'm not familiar with many cases at all that have presented that drastic a minority of votes being cast. But you're absolutely right. The more voters, the better it is.
And that's one reason why we have a preference for in-person manual ballot elections because we have the highest participation rate when we do that.
Speaker 29
Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. That is why I introduced the Worker Enfranchisement Act. My bill would provide for workplace democracy by mandating a two-thirds quorum of eligible employees to be present in a unionization election in order for those results to be deemed valid. If a two-thirds quorum is not present, then the election would be deemed invalid.
With a two-thirds quorum, still 84% of unions that won in September 2024 would have been valid. This, I believe, is a reasonable reform that can ensure that all employees have a voice in workplace unionization elections. Unfortunately, the Biden-Harris era NLRB made this lack of workplace democracy problem even worse. Under the board's Cemex decision, an employer can be ordered to bargain with a union even in the absence of a majority vote in a secret ballot election. The Biden board decided that an election result could be jettisoned based on an alleged unfair labor practice during the organizing campaign.
Thankfully, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Cemex within the Sixth Circuit jurisdiction. I believe it should be struck down nationwide. Ms. Abruzzo, given the serious consequences of issuing bargaining orders, what steps is your office taking to ensure that bargaining orders are rarely issued, narrowly applied, and issued with clear standards?
Crystal S. Carey
Thank you. Well, I would argue generally speaking that bargaining orders are a rare occurrence. They are to be withheld for the most serious and egregious violations in relation to election conduct. So I believe that even before the prior board took the steps to move to the Cemex standard, there were already board cases in place that had been in place for over 80 years quite frankly and had resulted in a number of rerun elections. So what we are doing is we are investigating cases to the extent that they come before us in relation to election misconduct and we are evaluating those under the standards of the current law.
So to be clear in Cemex, there was no specificity in relation to specifically what type of unfair labor practice would result in a Cemex bargaining order. So there is discretion when we are reviewing unfair labor practices to determine whether or not a Cemex would be appropriate.
Speaker 35
Gentleman yields and now call on Ms. McBath from Georgia for your five minutes of questioning.
Lucy McBath
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for visiting with us today to our witnesses. Ms. Kerrie, before becoming General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, you were employed as a partner at the law firm Morgan Lewis for just under eight years, is that correct?
Correct.
Speaker 37
Okay. And does Morgan Lewis represent both employees and management in employment and labor or does the firm specifically represent management at corporations involved in labor disputes?
Speaker 36
Thank you. Now, do you think that your previous multi-year employment as a high-level partner at a law firm representing only corporations makes you biased against workers when making decisions in unfair labor practices?
Speaker 41
You may think so, but it is clear that many Americans will find it impossible to believe that your previous work would not make you biased in favor of corporations over regular people when making these decisions. Under President Trump, the federal government has only become even more of a pay-to-play scheme for the most powerful people and entities in our country to avoid being held accountable for violating the law and people's rights. Ms. Kerrie, since you were sworn in as Counsel General, have you or anyone in your office even been contacted by phone or email about an active NLRB case by anyone representing a company or by the company themselves?
Crystal S. Carey
I mean, we receive contact from unions and companies consistently about pending cases.
Speaker 40
Okay. So then, all right. So then has the White House or political appointee at a different federal agency contacted you or your office about a specific NLRB case to request that a specific action be taken in favor of a company or over a worker?
Speaker 36
Okay. That's good to hear and I hope you can continue to do that. There's absolutely no reason that you should be resolving cases in favor of a certain party just because you received a call from the company itself or from the president. These cases are already stacked against our workers because of the power imbalance between a boss and a subordinate. And make no mistake that Republicans in Washington are not pro-union and they're not pro-worker.
Democrats used our majority to save the hard-earned union 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 majority during President Trump's first term to change the law to prevent union workers from being able to write their dues off on their taxes.
And so the difference couldn't be much clearer. Regardless of how hostile to unions this president and the majority may be, the first section of the National Labor Relations Act clearly states that it is, and I'm quoting, "the policy of the United States to encourage the practice of collective bargaining and freedom of association," end quote. But that is the exact opposite of what we're seeing from this president and House Republicans. And I yield.
Thank you. I now recognize my friend from Florida, Mr. Fine.
Randy Fine
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, the NLRB is supposed to be a neutral arbiter. It's not supposed to be an advocate for businesses, and it's not, contrary to I think what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe, it's not supposed to be an advocate for labor. It's supposed to be a mediator in the middle to ensure fairness. But I think we saw, as we saw in many instances under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, government weaponized for approaches that were simply not appropriate.
Mr. Murphy, the Biden-Harris board's Stericycle and Lion Elastomers decisions effectively prohibited employers from enforcing standard policies requiring respectful conduct and barred employers from disciplining employees for racist, sexist, and bigoted language used during protected activities. So I want to be clear: Joe Biden's NLRB encouraged and allowed racists, sexists, and those engaged in other discriminatory behavior, took their side, put the finger on the scale for the worst imaginable people. Joe Biden, pro-racist. How would those decisions conflict in your view with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?
James R. Murphy
I think the board is obligated to take into consideration the protections afforded by Title VII. And I'm aware of the cases that you mentioned. We have similar cases involving those precedents, so I can't speak specifically beyond that.
Speaker 43
So you disagree with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris's pro-racist, pro-sexist policies that they pushed forward, you know, in those decisions at the time.
James R. Murphy
I didn't say that exactly, sir, but I would like to consider, reconsider, if the opportunity arises, whether those cases were correctly decided.
Randy Fine
So how might the board be able to take swift action to resolve these employee conduct cases?
James R. Murphy
The issue has to be raised in an unfair labor practice case before us. And if we're to overrule precedent, as I've said several times during this hearing, it would require a three-member majority.
Randy Fine
Okay. Changing topics, Ms. Kerrie, you've declined to issue any new mandatory submission requirements for cases. It's an unprecedented step that you've described as deliberately allowing regions to resolve cases without creating a bottleneck at the NLRB headquarters. Now I can understand reasons to do that, staffing and things like that. But can you explain really why you made that decision and, more importantly, what oversight mechanisms have you put in place to ensure regional consistency and quality without centralized case-by-case clearance?
To be clear, we don't want people in one part of the country thinking the NLRB does things one way and in another part, it should be standard across the board. So why did you do this and what have you made done to make sure that there is consistency across the board?
Crystal S. Carey
Yeah, sir, I've actually been a little shocked at the pushback that I've got from both sides on the failure or the refusal to issue this mandatory submissions advice memorandum. I did it for the reasons I stated in the memo where I said I was not going to issue one. And it is very much so because the backlog of cases that our regional offices are facing. The procedural...
Randy Fine
So it's a resource issue. Okay. It is a resource issue and when you have to... I'll grant that, I'll grant that that's your argument. So what are you going to do to make sure that in Florida, that region, I'm confident they'll do the right thing because it's Florida, versus New York or California where I'm fairly confident they'll do the wrong thing.
Speaker 44
So like what are you... how do you make sure that there's one set of standards?
Crystal S. Carey
Well I disagree. I think all of our field offices would have a consistent outcome regardless of what state they're in.
So beyond your... beyond your confidence...
Crystal S. Carey
I'm going to answer your question. Okay. So in relation to what we're doing is we have a division called Operations in headquarters, and they are in constant contact with each of their districts, which contains a certain amount of regional offices. We have direct conversations with Operations, and I have been in significant number of field offices so far and have held all field staff calls where I message my points of view on specific cases and on specific case handling methodology. So in order of consistency, I don't have time to look at 18,000 cases.
And if we want to get through the backlog, I have to trust my people, and I do trust them, that they are doing the right thing, which is what I have instructed them to do in relation to the cases. We do have a number of the cases that would have been included on the mandatory submissions advice memo, which quite frankly I'd written for over a year as my nomination was pending and I just never issued it. But we have all of those cases that are pending before the board. So Jim keeps saying if we have the opportunity to review them, my... my opinion and position on Stericycle is out there before him pending. My position out there on Amazon is out there and pending.
My position on Siren is out there pending. My position on Hospital Metropolitano is out there and pending. So those cases we are able to find internally through the use of our operational resources and not place an additional burden on our regional offices to have to write lengthy memos to submit to the division of advice.
Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thank you. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Bobby Scott
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Murphy, I understand you've been at the board for 47 years.
Speaker 49
That's correct before I retired. Now I've unretired, so I'm running the clock again.
Chief counsel, sir.
James R. Murphy
None of those three were. I have worked... I have worked on the staffs of...
Speaker 54
One was appointed... one was appointed in 2010. Is that correct? Okay, I apologize. So he would have been appointed by President Obama.
James R. Murphy
Oh, I see, I understand. There was a misunderstanding there. I have worked for three board chairs. I worked for three board members, all of whom were Republicans. But prior to that I have at many times been working on the staffs of a... a board member who was a Democrat.
You can have a Republican that was appointed by a Democrat.
That is correct. In fact, we need one.
Speaker 52
Um, and I mean that's the... law requires appointment of Democrats and Republicans, so a president, Democratic president would have appointed perhaps some Republicans.
Right.
Speaker 46
Okay. Is the mission still at the NLRB to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining?
Speaker 45
Okay. Ms. Abruzzo, for the record, what would you do with the additional money that you've requested that it would be difficult to do without the additional money you're requesting?
Crystal S. Carey
Hire additional staff, implement training resources for all of our new staff and our existing staff on efficient case handling methods.
Speaker 47
Um, the... we've frequently talked about a backlog of cases in general. What kinds of cases are in the backlog and how long is that backlog?
Crystal S. Carey
Every kind of case you can think of is in the backlog. There's cases involving work rules, there's cases involving discharges, there's cases involving bargaining, organizing, duties of fair representation, failure to provide information. Um, you know, we currently have around 18,000 cases that are pending in the investigatory stage.
Speaker 50
And you've pointed out that you need additional staff so you can get to them more quickly. And you've pointed out that the workers have no private right of action, so they have to wait for the NLRB to decide the case, they can't go to court on their own. Is that right?
Correct.
Speaker 50
Um, you have to facilitate the backlog, developed a strategy to distribute cases to other offices. Some of us think this might be actually ineffective because the new office would have to investigate it, and if they find merit, it has to come back to the original office and they have to start all over again. We've written you a letter to respond to in detail on that, so we'll just wait for the response on that. One complaint we frequently hear is that there's no meaningful deterrent to discourage employers from committing unfair labor practices. For example, if an employer fires somebody illegally for trying to organize a union, what kinds of penalties and sanctions can you impose?
Crystal S. Carey
Reinstatement of that employee, we can seek back pay and other compensatory damages related to, you know, when they were out of work, work for look for job resources, things like that.
Crystal S. Carey
Well, I mean, they have to put the worker back and they have to also, I didn't mention, post a notice and distribute that to other employees.
Speaker 56
But that's not a penalty, that's just reinstating the status quo, is that right?
Crystal S. Carey
Well, I think the notice posting most employers would argue is a penalty.
Crystal S. Carey
Well, that's correct, we're not, we do not have the ability to issue those types of things.
Speaker 47
Another problem is that when a new union forms, some have trouble getting a first contract. What can be done to ensure that an employer does not refuse to agree to a first contract?
Crystal S. Carey
Well, I mean, this is what we discussed earlier, so there we have plenty of options in terms of unfair labor practices, but as we've talked about here, we need to be able to get to those unfair labor practices to have findings in relation to that. So some of the remedies that could come out of an unfair labor practice in relation to bad faith bargaining would be mandatory bargaining schedules, the use of a mediator, and so forth.
Speaker 57
Thank you, and while we're discussing issues affecting unions, I just wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that representatives from the Machinists IAM union and UNITE HERE are in the audience. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 58
I'd like to recognize myself for five minutes. There's no exaggeration that the NLRB under the previous administration rigged the system to favor union leadership over both workers and employers. That's a problem, a serious problem, since the NLRB is supposed to act as a neutral mediator between unions, workers, and employers. One example of the Biden-Harris era overreach is the effort to reclassify independent contractors as employees, even when both employers and workers do not want the reclassification. That's why I'm championing the Rural Healthcare Act, which would codify locum tenens as independent contractors.
This legislation ensures that politically motivated decisions at the NLRB will not prevent these medical professionals from offering their services in areas lacking healthcare resources.
I thank our witnesses, I thank our witnesses for coming before the committee today and I look forward to learning about how you're resolving the mistakes of the previous administration. Ms. Kerry, the National Board Relations Act protects not only worker rights to organize, but also their rights to refrain from union activity. Could you discuss whether the Biden-Harris era General Counsel's enforcement agenda adequately protected workers who chose not to unionize or who sought to decertify a union?
Crystal S. Carey
Unfortunately, I think a majority of the cases that were filed in terms of decertification petitions, which you mentioned at the end, were ultimately blocked by unfair labor practice proceedings. And given the amount of cases that were pending in the backlog, they were not prioritized in the way that they should have been in order to get a quicker resolution for those RD or decertification petitions.
Speaker 58
And what are you doing to ensure that the agency serves all workers, not just those who want to have a union representation?
Crystal S. Carey
Yeah, I mean, it's certainly inherent in the Act that employees are protected even when they want to refrain from doing that. So in terms of addressing cases that are filed in relation to blocking charges, which I mentioned, which is a charge that would block a representation case or a decertification from moving forward, we do prioritize the processing of those types of cases in the regions so that we can ensure that they are processed quickly and that we can get to a resolution on the representation cases.
Speaker 58
Okay, thank you. Ms. Murphy, the Atlantic Opera decision reinstated independent contractor classification standard that the DC circuit previously revoked, finding that the board created a standard inconsistent with common law. Restricting independent contractor status undermines the worker's freedom to choose how they work. Can you discuss the DC's circuit reasoning?
James R. Murphy
I can't discuss the DC circuit's reasoning specifically, but the current board position in Atlanta Opera certainly puts us in tension with the definition that the DC circuit has consistently had. And I would also note that over the years there's been much back and forth with respect to board precedent defining who is and who is not an independent contractor. One possible solution to this back and forth would be legislative action. The board can only do so much. We may revisit, and I believe we might already have pending before us a case asking to reconsider Atlanta Opera.
I can't talk about the specifics of that, but.
Speaker 58
Okay. And how might the full board be able to take steps to revisit the Atlanta Opera and restore a classification standard that respects both judicial precedent and preferences of the workers who choose independent arrangements?
James R. Murphy
As I just mentioned, I think we do have cases pending or likely to have cases pending that will give us that opportunity. The other alternative would be through rulemaking, but that's a rather extensive and long process.
Speaker 58
Okay. Under the Biden administration, the NLRB General Counsel Abruzzo issued a memo stating that her belief that certain college athletes were employers, employees under the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB regional director later found Dartmouth basketball players should be employees, and another NLRB regional director alleged that University of Southern California student athletes are employees. Although both of these cases were ultimately withdrawn, could you discuss the factors that should be considered when classifying student athletes as employees or not as employees under the Act?
James R. Murphy
As you mentioned, both of those cases have washed out. I think that the National Labor Relations Board is ill-suited to resolve nationwide the issue of whether or not student athletes are employees or not employees because we only have jurisdiction over private collegiate institutions. And the majority of the Big Four conferences that people refer to in the major sports, the overwhelming majority consists of public institutions. So it might be preferable, I'm not advocating, but I'm saying it might be preferable for Congress to consider an independent agency with jurisdiction over all of those entities for the specific purpose of establishing uniformity for in compensation for student athletes or however one wishes to define them.
Speaker 58
Okay. Thank you. I'm going to now recognize my friend from Connecticut, Ms. Hayes.
Jahana Hayes
Thank you. And thank you both for testifying today. There's lots of hearings going on. The NLRB has been unable to conduct normal business during much of the Trump administration due to a lack of a quorum on the board. We've heard that from many other members.
This has caused a significant disruption to NLRB operations, including a backlog of over 3500 pending cases. These cases are critical to protecting the rights of employees to organize, determine union representation, and address unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act. I appreciate the board prioritizing the backlog of cases. Still, I am concerned the NLRB does not have sufficient staffing and resources to process the cases efficiently while ensuring protection for worker rights. Reports indicate the NLRB has less than 75% of the staff needed across all regional offices to handle the current caseloads.
Further, the Trump administration has proposed an additional 3% funding cut of $14 million to the NLRB in FY 27 as caseloads continue to rise. Ms. Casey, how would additional help funding the NLRB process, how would additional funding help the NLRB process the backlog of cases and staffing needed across the board? And what safeguards are in place to ensure the rights of workers are protected while the NLRB attempts to adjudicate this backlog efficiently?
Crystal S. Carey
Thank you. Yes, I mean, I agree. We definitely need more staffing if we're going to attack the backlog in the way that it needs to be to get answers to workers. In terms of the steps that we're taking, every plan that we're putting into action right now in terms of attacking the backlog is based on the staffing that we have right now. We would love to have additional staff so that we can come at this from even additional layers in a different directions to be able to do this.
So we would obviously have to start with training for the new board agents who would be investigating and litigating any unfair labor practices. So certainly any additional funding would be put toward, you know, additional training for those new staff for all the new staff. We also quite frankly are going to have some space issues. There's been a lot of GSA realignments that have happened over the past five years that have reduced a significant amount of space for us as well.
Speaker 61
So I guess directly, can the NLRB handle it at current staffing levels with no changes? Do you feel confident that you could handle the work ahead?
Crystal S. Carey
We are only clearing about an additional 108 cases per month on top of what we're intaking. So you can help me with the math on that, but at the current level, no.
Jahana Hayes
No. Thank you. The NLRB issued a landmark 2024 ruling regarding Amazon prohibitive captive audience meeting after my state, the state of Connecticut, passed legislation to ban this practice two years earlier. Connecticut law prohibits employers from retaliating against workers who refuse to attend employer-mandated meetings on political or religious matters. These captive audience meetings are often used by employers to discourage workers from organizing or joining a union.
A federal court upheld the Connecticut law in February. Mr. Murphy, you stated earlier in this hearing that employers have the right to free speech when discussing the NLRB Amazon ruling. While employers have a right to free speech, employees also have a right to explore their options without intimidation or coercion. Mr. Murphy, I guess, has there been any instances where employers have gone beyond free speech to discourage unionization in violation of the National Labor Relations Act?
James R. Murphy
Too many to count. Of course, you know, the freedom to engage in a captive audience speech does not give employers the freedom to make threats in violation of the National Labor Relations Act or to make promises of benefits in violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
Jahana Hayes
Thank you. I think many of these captive audience meetings go beyond free speech and discourage unionization, and I hope that you will continue to abide by this precedent. But also in closing, I'd just like to remind everyone, unions are the membership. You know, I hear everyone in these committees talking about union bosses and union organizing. They are the members, the workers, the people who show up every day to work and earn a living wage, and we have a responsibility to them.
That's what the Department of Labor should protect, those employees and their labor rights and their organization rights. I mean, there may be corporations where employees choose not to unionize, but again, it is their choice. And what we have to do is remove all the barriers so that they can make those decisions free from intimidation. Thank you, and I yield back.
Gentlelady yields. Now call on the ranking member, Mr. Sagne, for your line of question.
Mark DeSaulnier
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Murphy, Ms. Kerry, this has been a breath of fresh air. Forgive us on our side if we're a little bit suspicious. It's not directed at you personally. So I want a couple things.
First of all, conflicts of interest. Ms. Kerry was brought up earlier about a potential conflict you had about recusing yourself and the timeline with Amazon. And then the previous administration, there was a controversy with board member Emanuel. And Mr. Murphy, you were in the organization. So can both of you speak to trust that this committee needs as far as disclosures, and then more broadly, trust about how we can work with you?
If we're going to get extra money, nothing would make me happier than if you would just have the money and impose laws in a bipartisan, fair way. So first, Ms. Kerry, I wanted to bring it up because it was already brought up, conflicts of interest.
Crystal S. Carey
Correct. Yes, so my ethics agreement is public. It's available. You know, we had a line of question about this as well at my nomination hearing. So basically, my ethics agreement lays out all the parameters.
It is very matter-specific. So, you know, there are deadlines that are rolling deadlines under the ethics agreement. And in relation to that, I am in constant contact with the DAEO, which is a designated agency ethics officer in our agency. And I also have two screeners in my front office that review cases before they come before me for consideration. And I think that Laurel and Lenise, who are here behind me and who are in my front office, would probably say I'm overly cautious at times in relation to any case I open.
I always check the participant list prior to looking at anything in the file. So in terms of how I can make you more comfortable with the fact that I abide by my ethics agreement, other than telling you what I just said in my sworn testimony, I completely abide by that ethics agreement and I take it extremely seriously.
Mark DeSaulnier
First with the ethics issues. You've been there for a long time. I really appreciate your service in being willing to come back. So on ethics first, and then secondarily, everything we've heard today is very positive. So how does the committee, both the chair and I in a bipartisan way, keep in communication and make sure we're helping, but also we're getting results, not just with the backlogs, but all the operations of the board?
As far as ethics are concerned, sir, after 47 years of board experience, no experience outside, and I had to divest myself of my vast stockholdings in four companies before, right after I took office.
James R. Murphy
So I have no recusal issues. I've arranged, made those arrangements through the Office of Ethics at the board. As far as communications, I welcome them. Absolutely. At any point in time, it doesn't have to be in this particular context.
But as long as the communications do not involve a specific case, that, you know, I'm open to responding, particularly as to operations. And as to budget, by all means. Anything that we can do to persuade the House and Senate to give us at least as much as was asked in the OMB-directed budget proposal and hopefully more if you're willing to do so. Certainly not the 200 million, which would require a disastrous cut in agency operations.
Mark DeSaulnier
And you mentioned earlier, and I would expect this from a Princeton graduate, the ethical behavior. But you mentioned that you would resign if there was inappropriate pressure. Could you, given what you just said, could you speak a little bit more to that?
James R. Murphy
Well, I mean that, sir. You know, if the president has the authority to fire a board member, and I have a feeling that the Supreme Court in the Slaughter decision will make that ruling, then if I am asked specifically to resolve a particular case one way or another, apart from the facts and legal issues applicable to the case, I will recuse myself in the first instance from further participation in that case. And if that's not satisfactory to the person asking me to do something, then I would resign.
Mark DeSaulnier
One just last question. One experience I had in California when I was chair of the Labor Committee in the State Senate was it was the same employers breaking the laws and knowing very well that government doesn't always work in the most coordinated effort. So we created in a bipartisan way an interagency agreement with the use of technology. So people who were failing to pay their franchise tax, their board of equalization, or breaking labor laws, it was all coordinated. And it was a great disincentive.
And I'll tell you who was really supportive were good employers because they were competing against people who weren't paying their taxes and weren't paying their workers' comp. So is there potential that this committee could work with you to improve that? Because if you're a bad employer, if you're a bad human being, it's just Pavlov's dog. You're more likely not to do it if you know you're going to get caught. We can continue.
James R. Murphy
Some type of coordination might be appropriate, but again, that becomes case-specific.
Speaker 1
The gentleman yields. Now I call on Ms. Omar from Minnesota for your five minutes of questioning.
Ilhan Omar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Kerry, prior to your confirmation as General Counsel, you served as a partner at Morgan Lewis, which is one of the most notorious union-busting firms in the country. Morgan Lewis represents some of the largest corporations fighting against worker organizing, such as SpaceX, Tesla, and even Amazon. The reason I'm mentioning your former law firm is because your office is now giving Amazon a major victory by pursuing a settlement that shuts down a years-long case. This case could have found Amazon to be a joint employer of delivery drivers and require it to bargain with its union workers.
Amazon has fought for years against recognizing any responsibility for the delivery workers who wear its logo, drive its trucks, follow its instructions. In fact, there was a recent Bloomberg report published just this week that uncovered the extensive control Amazon has over its drivers, from controlling their routes to even their hygiene. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record the Bloomberg article titled "What Trump Delivered for Amazon."
Ilhan Omar
Ms. Carey, you have been on the job for about six months, and we're already seeing one of the largest clients of your former firm get a bailout. I am deeply concerned about the conflict of interest here and about your willingness to enforce the law in good faith. Did you represent Amazon at Morgan Lewis?
I did.
Crystal S. Carey
Because pursuant to the ethics agreement, any recusal obligation would have expired in December prior to me being sworn in.
Ilhan Omar
In your confirmation hearing before the Senate, did you commit to recusing yourself from any enforcement decision or any actions involving Amazon?
Crystal S. Carey
During my confirmation hearing, Senator Hawley asked me at that moment if I would be recused from Amazon, and the answer in July of last year was yes.
Crystal S. Carey
Pursuant to my ethics agreement that was approved by the Office of Government Ethics, my recusal to Amazon fell off in December prior to me being sworn in as General Counsel.
Ilhan Omar
Did you direct any regional staff to pursue a settlement with Amazon in Palmdale, California?
Yes, that is my job.
Ilhan Omar
So the settlement lets Amazon walk away without ever being found a joint employer. Did you specifically provide that provision to be included?
Crystal S. Carey
So I can't talk about the case because it is still pending litigation. Amazon, I'm sorry, the Teamsters filed a special appeal to the Board, which will be sitting before Jim. I have filed an answer to that appeal, which was filed late last night. I will say, and I think it would be worth your while if you have not, is to read the administrative law judge's decision in approving that settlement. It is very telling, and the facts that she relayed are very accurate in relation to questions in relation to the underlying authorization and recognition in general.
And additionally, I think that she did a great job in laying out how this actually comports with longstanding Board law and results in a quicker settlement where employees would actually get a much faster resolution.
Ilhan Omar
Did anyone from the White House or a political appointee contact you regarding this case or other Amazon cases?
Ilhan Omar
So we are to believe that Amazon, which donated $1 million to the Trump inauguration, got the most favorable position outcome and nobody made a call. That sounds like a huge coincidence. Will you provide the committee with a list of cases you have recused yourself from since you've been sworn in?
Ilhan Omar
Ms. Carey, your job is to protect workers and to hold law-breaking companies accountable. You are not here to give your former clients or this administration's friends a get-out-of-jail-free card. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record the transcript from Ms. Carey's confirmation hearing.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlelady yields. Okay, and I want to thank our witnesses for your very candid and very truthful and factual responses to our question today. And it was a brilliant hearing, I believe, and I believe the ranking member will agree with me on that. And so with that, I will recognize the ranking member for your closing remarks.
Mark DeSaulnier
Mr. Chairman, everybody laughed when you said that because you didn't see me, I was shaking your head, my head no, just in the spirit of never mind.
I just want to thank you both. This is a breath of fresh air. Both of us were talking, we'd like to work with you together. We're going to have differences, but that's okay. All of my colleagues are probably sick of me bringing up the Eisenhower quote where he said only a fool would come between American worker and their ability to organize.
And that's from, I believe, as somebody who's read everything I can about the former president, that he realized in his experience as a military leader, but also as a logistics expert, that he needed average Americans to fight a war, to build an economy, and to win a war. Well, he valued that very really. And I think we can do that in this country and still have people be very successful on the investment side. But we have to have those countervailing institutions and you are in charge of, in many ways, protecting one of those countervailing institutions. Mr. Murphy, you know this from almost 50 years.
So, I just want to say I'm encouraged. I look forward to working with you. Ms. Gery, I don't know if you've gone to the regional administrative office in San Francisco, but if you haven't yet, I'd be happy to join you there. I know that area well. I used to have a restaurant right around the corner and had the Biden regional administrator in every once in a while.
So I look forward to working with you both, but don't be offended if I want to hold you accountable and make sure that that trust continues to be earned. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the ranking member. Again, I thank our witnesses for your testimony and for shedding light on the challenges the NLRB is facing today and I commend the agency for actively working to clean up the mess left by the previous administration. Today's discussion reinforced how the Biden-Harris NLRB departed from neutrality, tilting toward union leaders at the expense of worker choice and longstanding precedent. The Biden's board policy choices left the agency with a staggering case backlog and undermined the board's ability to carry out its purpose under the Act and to function as a fair and efficient arbiter of workplace disputes. Chairman Murphy and General Counsel Gery now face the significant task of restoring balance at the agency, ensuring that cases are processed efficiently and reestablishing the board's neutral role.
Filling vacant board seats remains essential so the agency can decide cases more quickly and restore the precedent the Biden board cast aside. I again urge the Senate to confirm President Trump's nominees. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues and with today's witnesses to make sure the NLRB protects workers' rights, respects employers' obligation, and operates with fairness and stability. And you have my commitment on that and I look forward to working with you as we continue through this process. And thank you for your great work in dealing with this backlog.
Mark DeSaulnier
Mr. Chairman, sorry to interrupt. I just want to request unanimous consent to enter into the record an oversight letter from ranking member Scott and I and also from an article from the New Republic, "How Trump is Wrecking the Agency That Protects Workers' Labor Rights."
Without objection.
Thank you.
Speaker 66
Okay, with that, again, I'd like to thank the witnesses for your time in this subcommittee today and without objection there being no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.