Virginia Foxx: Unions Shouldn't Be Able To Require Money From Non-Members For 'Political Activities'

[00:00:01]The gentleman yields, and now I call on our chairman emeritus, Dr. Fox North Carolina for your line 5 minutes of questioning.

[00:00:09]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[00:00:11]Ms. Carey, 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 consisted consented, excuse me, to paying for such expenses?

[00:00:57]>> This is a really important issue, and that'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 um 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 to be clearer up front on what options are 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?

[00:01:50]What are What is it? I've I've and and I've analogized to what it looks like when I get my my 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 you 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 the information up front for employees is what's most critical.

[00:02:43]>> Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. Under former General Counsel Abruzzo, the Biden-Harris NLRB tried to overturn 100 years worth of precedents, including many that were established or reaffirmed on a bipartisan basis across dozens of doctrinal areas.

[00:03:02]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 it attributable to the deliberate allocation of resources away from retail cases resolution and toward ideological agenda setting?

[00:03:35]>> 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.

[00:03:56]With a progressive overall reduction in staff members in 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.

[00:04:15]>> So, I'm assuming then the confirmation of another board member could help you clear the case backlog.

[00:04:21]>> I certainly hope so.

[00:04:22]>> Ms. Cherry, 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.

[00:04:35]Before General Counsel Abruzzo's era, the agency maintained a stable inventory of a proc- 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?

[00:04:56]>> I found a mess, quite frankly.

[00:04:58]Um, 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 has has really hit hard in the regions and our ability to impact the regional um 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.

[00:05:32]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our witnesses.

[00:05:36]>> [snorts]