Please see the below letter issued by the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI):

February 1, 2018


National Labor Relations Board

1015 Half Street, SE
Washington, D.C. 20570


Members of the National Labor Relations Board,


Below are supplemental comments from the Workforce Fairness Institute sent on January 18, 2018 in relation to the 2014 Election Rule.

The purpose for the Election Rule, unstated but obvious to all, was to increase the union win rate in board elections.   That result has failed to materialize.   While the union win rate appears to have increased slightly in 2017, we suspect, but do not know, that administering the rule has diverted substantial resources away from other important agency responsibilities, such as prosecuting unfair labor practices.  If this is accurate, this reason alone requires that all provisions of the rule be withdrawn as aforementioned, but for those that eliminate outdated references and streamline procedures, WFI asks for the below considerations:

  1. As previously stated the rule both drastically shortens the time for a board election, stripping America’s workers of their freedom to cast informed votes regarding the unionization of their workplace and does not give employers a reasonable period of time to file objections to the election or to thereafter express their views to their workers.  In addition, it expands the Excelsior rule to require that private worker contact information, the release of which has not previously been authorized by the worker, be provided to the union together with information disclosing where the worker is located on the work floor, subjecting them to union solicitations during the work time.  This provision should be withdrawn.
  2.  The Board should amend the rule as follows:

(i) The regulation should address the difficulties workers face when they file a decertification petition and must navigate Board law and procedures.  If a contract is involved, the workers must file a decertification petition within a narrow (30-day) window prior to the expiration of the first three years of the contract and any successor contract.  Most employees are unfamiliar with filing decertification petitions.  Board law prohibits the employer from assisting his workers even if requested and, we suspect but do not know, that some agency staff may be reluctant to guide them through the process.  Provisions should be added to the regulations that provide for periodic written notice to employees of their right to file a decertification petition and offer agency guidance on how to do it.  One such notice should always be provided to workers 60 days prior to the opening of any period for filing a decertification petition.  The union and employer should be required to jointly notify the agency soon after a contract is executed giving its length and expiration date.  Using that information, the NLRB should publish the notice of employees’ right to decertify the union and require it be posted in conspicuous places in the workplace.

 (ii) The Board’s revised election procedures should address the its blocking charge policies, which can contribute to unwarranted, significant delays in holding an election based on alleged but unproven unfair labor practices.

WFI appreciates the NLRB’s request for information on this critical issue and is encouraged by the Board’s willingness to examine the shortcomings of this ruling.

Heather Greenaway
Workforce Fairness Institute



The Workforce Fairness Institute is an organization committed to educating voters, employers, employees and citizens about issues affecting the workplace.  To learn more, please visit:


To schedule an interview with a Workforce Fairness Institute representative, please contact Ryan Williams at (202) 677-7060.



Featured Blog

AZ Daily Sun--Coconino Voices: PRO Act legislation would hurt local businesses

— 05.13.2021 —
By: Julie Pastrik Arizona businesses and workers have had an incredibly challenging year given the economic slowdown that followed in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. However, local businesses and industries across the state are resilient and on the road to a strong recovery that will mean more jobs for Arizona workers and increased economic development to strengthen our communities. That is, as long as Congress does not move forward with potentially devastating legislation that would hurt local employers and employees alike while impeding our state’s economic recovery. Unfortunately, some members of Congress seem determined to do just that by pushing through the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. As harmless as the name may sound, the PRO Act would have serious repercussions for local businesses, particularly smaller ones, while undermining long-standing rights for employees and threatening the growing gig economy that has helped provide much-needed income for so many during this time. Arizona is fortunate to have leaders like Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema, who have both refrained from joining the vast majority of their Democratic colleagues in cosponsoring the PRO Act. In a slap in the face to Arizona workers, the PRO Act removes one of the most fundamental rights a worker has when it comes to voting in elections to determine whether to unionize: the secret ballot. Instead, workers could be forced to sign union authorization cards in front of other employees, their employer, or union organizers. This bill would also destroy workers’ right to privacy by allowing unions access to personal information, including their home address and personal phone number. If that doesn’t open the door to union intimidation and harassment, I don’t know what does. As if that was not bad enough, the PRO Act would create major new challenges for Arizona businesses, making it harder for them to create jobs, expand in their communities, and even keep their doors open. It would redefine what it means to be a “joint employer” under national labor law, greatly complicating existing relationships between franchisors and franchisees as well as between business owners, contractors, subcontractors, and vendors and suppliers. At the same time, it would interfere with attorney-client confidentiality and make it much more difficult for small businesses to secure a legal advice on labor issues. Particularly harmful during these times, the PRO Act would apply a failed policy from California to national labor law by using the “ABC” test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee. This makes it much harder to qualify as an independent contractor, threatening the freedom and flexibility that tens of thousands of Arizonans find in independent contracting and gig economy work. Ultimately, the PRO Act is bad public policy that only works for union leaders to inflate their falling ranks while threatening workers’ rights, undermining small businesses, and jeopardizing a growing part of our economy. This is not a good solution for Arizona, and Senators Sinema and Kelly should stay firm and not cosponsor this misguided legislation.
Read More