[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 31, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E228-E229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 743, THE TEAMWORK FOR EMPLOYEES AND MANAGERS ACT

                                 ______


                         HON. HARRIS W. FAWELL

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 31, 1995
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was pleased to join with my 
colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Gunderson, in introducing H.R. 743, the 
Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act, or Team Act, legislation which 
will go a long way toward improving the competitiveness of U.S. 
companies.
  In 1935, Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA], 
which is rightly considered the cornerstone of our country's national 
labor policy. At the heart of its many provisions, the NLRA protects 
the rights of workers to organize and to bargain collectively with 
their employers. It also includes a number of like-minded protections 
for employers.
  However, we cannot ignore the fact that economic conditions have 
changed dramatically during the last 60 years, and the American 
workplace has undergone a similarly dramatic transformation. American 
business is no longer faced with the type of labor-management strife 
that permeated virtually every aspect of industrial America during 
1930's. Instead, we are witness to growing trend in which American 
workers and managers are abandoning the confrontational tactics of 
their past and, together, are seeking better ways of doing business.
  American business today sees its foreign competitors gaining a 
competitive advantage, due in large part of their utilization of 
greater labor-management cooperation. Unfortunately, it is provisions 
of the National Labor Relations Act--and, how those provisions are 
being interpreted by the courts and the National Labor Relations Board 
[NLRB]--which are part of the reason American businesses find 
themselves at this a competitive disadvantage.
  Perhaps the best known example of the legal impediments confronting 
companies that wish to utilize employee participation programs is the 
NLRB's December 1992 decision involving Electromation, Inc. The Board 
found that the small, nonunion electronics manufacturer violated the 
NLRA when it established employer-employee committees to address 
various workplace issues, including the company's no-smoking, 
attendance, and pay-progression policies.
  Why have managers and workers in America's industries been having 
trouble setting up manager-worker teams to increase production, 
quality, and efficiency at the place of employment?
  The basic reason is that section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor 
Relations Act [NLRA] says that it is an unfair labor practice for an 
employer to, in effect, create a sham, or company union, I.E., ``to 
dominate the formation or administration of any labor organization or 
contribute financial or other support to it.''
 Section 2(5) defines a labor union so broadly it includes all groups 
``in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in 
whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning * * * conditions 
of work.'' Since employee involvement groups usually deal with 
conditions of work, the National Labor 
[[Page E229]] Relations Board [NLRB] has rather consistently ruled that 
employee groups working in cooperation with their employer, are labor 
organizations which are dominated and supported by the employer. Hence 
the employer is deemed guilty of unfair labor practices for having, in 
effect, created a sham or company--illegal--union.
  We are talking about voluntary employer-employee agreements 
encouraging employee involvement in the conduct of a business in 
today's fast evolving information-centered economies and societies. 
Thus, we are talking about something very subjective--cooperation--a 
working togetherness of employers and employees in work teams. As 
taught by W. Edward Deming and others, the dynamic work team concept 
moves as much brain work as possible to front-line employees. It 
involves employees intellectually in the business operation and commits 
them to making the process function more effectively while constantly 
seeking their input into methods of improving it.
  It seems to me that it isn't really possible or desirable for any law 
to stop employers and employees from voluntarily cooperating and 
sharing responsibilities. Congress surely never intended to proscribe 
place of employment cooperation between employees and employers as to 
their various conditions of work.
  Yet, according to the NLRB--in Electromation--that apparently is 
precisely what Congress did 60 years ago when they passed section 
8(A)(2) of the NLRA--designed to stop the formation of company unions.
  This seems illogical to me. Employers obviously should not be 
creating sham or company unions and the law ought to simply so state. 
On the other hand, Congress should be doing all it can to motivate 
employers to have highly involved and motivated workforces as 
encouraged for instance by the coveted Malcolm Baldridge Quality 
Awards. And we should be able to make it clear that cooperation between 
employers and employees should not be equated with creating company or 
sham unions. The NLRB ought to be able to recognize an overall intent 
by an employer and/or employees to create a sham union without stopping 
employers and employees from discussing matters of mutual interest, 
including issues of quality, productivity, and efficiency which does 
not have, claim, or seek authority to negotiate or enter into or amend 
collective bargaining agreements between the employer and any labor 
organization.
  The time has come for Congress to consider what changes must be made 
to the NLRA so that it may accurately reflect the nature of today's 
workplace and the challenges that confront American business; and to 
consider what change must be made so that companies can confidently 
follow the example of the management-worker teams who spoke here today.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, I am 
committed to that task. As such, I intend to convene the subcommittee 
at the earliest possible date in order to hear testimony on the Team 
Act, and to expedite its consideration. I urge my colleagues to join 
the effort to improve workplace cooperation and, in turn, U.S. 
competitiveness by cosponsoring H.R. 743, the Teamwork for Employees 
and Managers Act.


                          ____________________