I 111th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 6436 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES November 18, 2010 Mr. Conyers (for himself and Mr. Filner) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor A BILL To amend the National Labor Relations Act to clarify the intent of Congress for Federal labor law preemption of State and local law, and for other purposes.

1.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the State Public Funds Protection Act.

2.

Findings

Congress finds the following: (1)The Supreme Court ruling in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, No. 06–939 (June 19, 2008), significantly impairs the broad sovereign power of the States to decide how to spend State treasury funds. The Brown decision undermines this sovereign power by unduly restricting the types of legislation a State or local government can pass that affect employer-employee labor relations and involve the receipt of State funds. (2)The Court’s decision misinterprets Congressional intent in the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), by characterizing State legislation that limits the use of State or local government funds to assist, deter, or promote union organizing as regulation that Congress intended to prohibit by enacting the NLRA. (3)Legislation directing State or local public funds away from union organizing activity or expression is consistent, not inconsistent, with Congressional intent and the express language of section 8(c) of the NLRA, which ensures that speech that is neither coercive nor a promise of a benefit shall not be deemed an unfair labor practice, or evidence of an unfair labor practice. (4)Congress by this provision intended no preemption of State and local governments placing limits on the use of State and local governmental funds to assist, deter, or promote union organizing. (5)Congress has forbidden recipients of Head Start funds, Workforce Investment Act funds, and National Community Service Act funds, from using Federal funds to assist promote, or deter union organizing. As such, policies that protect the integrity of public funds by directing State or local funds away from labor-related activity are consistent, not inconsistent, with the national labor policy. (6)Legislation that limits the use of State or local funds in connection with union organizing neither compels or forbids employer or employee advocacy for or against union organizing. (7)Restrictions on the use of State or local government funds in connection with union organizing do not prevent employers from spending their own, non-government procured funds, to assist, promote, or deter union advertising. (8)A State or local government restriction on the use of State funds in connection with union organizing does not regulate activity that the NLRA protects or prohibits. (9)Restrictions on the use of State or local government funds in connection with union organizing is not the regulation of activity that Congress intended to be controlled by the free play of economic forces. (10)Restrictions on the use of State or local government funds in connection with union organizing allow State and local governments to maintain their neutrality in union organizing campaigns and prevent the misappropriation of tax dollars.

3.

Clarifying the extent of state and local law preemption under the national labor relations act

Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 158), is amended— (1)by inserting (1) before The; and (2)by adding at the end the following: (2)Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to preempt any provision of State or local law that places limitations on the use of public funds or property to assist, deter or promote union organizing. .

4.

Rule of Construction

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as a Congressional endorsement or rejection of preemption rulings other than as explicitly provided for in this Act.