[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 157 (Wednesday, October 11, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1922-E1923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            TEAMWORK FOR EMPLOYEES AND MANAGERS ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                               speech of

                          HON. STEVE GUNDERSON

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, September 27, 1995

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 743) to 
     amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow labor 
     management cooperative efforts that improve economic 
     competitiveness in the United States to continue to thrive, 
     and for other purposes:

  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, the Teamwork for Employees and Managers 
Act of 1995 enables increased employee involvement in nonunion 
workplaces. However, in order to have an honest debate, we need to have 
an understanding as to the nature of the problem. And there is a 
problem.
  Given the intricacies of labor law and the fact that most of us here 
are not labor lawyers, let me make this as simple as possible. Today, a 
nonunion employer may unilaterally impose any decision regarding how 
employees work, when they work and the job they do. If the employer 
seeks to work with their employees to devise a mutually beneficial 
solution to those issues, the employer violates the National Labor 
Relations Act of 1935 [NLRB].
  Joint decisions are illegal in nonunion workplaces because of the 
interaction of two sections of the NLRB: Sections 8(a)(2) and section 
2(5). The pertinent part of section 8(a)(2) reads:

       8(a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer:
       (2) To dominate or interfere with the formation or 
     administration of any labor organization or contribute 
     financial or other support to it; NLRB sec, 8(a) (2); 29 
     U.S.C. sec. 158(a)(2).

  So it appears as if a nonunion employer cannot dominate or interfere 
with a union. A quick look at the definitions section of the NLRB makes 
clear that the legal definition of ``labor organization'' is much 
broader than labor union, however. Section 2(5) reads:

       Labor Organization--The term ``labor organization'' means 
     any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee 
     representation committee or plan, in which employees 
     participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in 
     part of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor 
     disputes, wages, rate of pay, hours, of employment, or 
     conditions of work. (emphasis added). NLRA sec. 2(5) 29 
     U.S.C. sec. 152(5).

  Essentially, a ``labor organization'' is any group of employees that 
``deals with'' employers on conditions of work. The phrase ``dealing 
with'' is very important here. In NLRB v. Cabot Carbon Co., 360 U.S. 
203 (1959), the Supreme Court defined ``dealing with'' as broader 
than just collective bargaining. Instead, the term ``dealing with'' 
involves any back and forth discussion between a group of employees and 
the employer. In short, the definition of labor organization makes it 
illegal under section 8(a)(2) for nonunion employers to start up teams 
to address and resolve issues with their employees.

  Let's look at an example. Suppose a small, nonunion manufacturing 
company has dramatically increasing worker's compensation rates. A 
reasonable assumption is that plant safety has decreased, resulting in 
more injuries and lost workdays. In response, the management implements 
a plant-wide health and safety committee by asking for volunteers from 
every area of the company from design to accounting to line and 
shipping employees.
  The committee is established, meets on company time and the company 
furnishes the supplies--paper, pencils, current safety plan, etc. After 
three meetings over the course of six weeks, the committee pinpoints 
that many of the injuries are eye injuries and foot injuries. Working 
together, the committee devises a custom-made set of safety glasses and 
agrees that the company should purchase lighter but sturdier safety 
shoes.

[[Page E 1923]]

  The example is oversimplified, but the establishment and operation of 
this committee is a clear violation of section 8(a)(2). The group of 
employees participated in a group that ``dealt with'' management. The 
issue they addressed--health and safety--involved conditions of work, 
namely the safety equipment production and shipping employees were 
expected to wear. The employer dominated and interfered with the group 
by initially asking for volunteers and by having it meet on company 
time and with company supplies. In an era of global competition, it 
appears that the law is antagonistic to cooperation.


                        why the nlra is so broad

  After the Great Depression, in 1933, Congress passed the National 
Industrial Recovery Act to give employees the right to bargain 
collectively through independent unions. However, the Recovery Act did 
not adequately protect that right and lacked sufficient enforcement 
mechanisms. In many companies, management set up company-dominated or 
``sham'' unions where union leaders were merely tools of management. 
Management then blocked the formation of independent unions on the 
grounds that employees were already represented by the company-
dominated organization.
  The NLRA was drafted to level the playing field between employers and 
employees and to end employer domination of employees through sham 
unions. Legislative history from the debate over the NLRA indicates 
that Congress intended to prohibit the practice of company-dominated 
unions; however, even Senator Wagner, the sponsor of the Act, stated 
that ``[t]he object of [prohibiting employer-dominated unions] is to 
remove from the industrial scene unfair pressure, not fair 
discussion.'' In other words, it appears that Congress intended to 
remove obstacles to independent unions for collective bargaining, yet 
intended to permit structures which promote employer-employee 
discussion and cooperation.


                         the electromation case

  On December 16, 1992, the National Labor Relation Board [NLRB or 
Board] issued its decision in Electromation, Inc. The case was 
considered both a litmus test for how the Board would treat cooperation 
cases and a chance for the Board to clarify what types of cooperation 
were legal under Section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA. The Board ruled 
unanimously that the company Electromation had violated Section 8(a)(2) 
by establishing five ``action committees'' to deal with workplace 
issues: absenteeism; no smoking policy; communications; pay 
progression; and attendance bonus.
  The Board found that by establishing and setting the size, 
responsibilities and goals of the five committees, the company 
dominated or interfered with a labor organization: a group of employees 
(the committee members), which dealt with management, on terms and 
conditions of employment (the subjects the committees dealt with). Far 
from clarifying the breadth of cooperation, the Board's decision in 
Electromation and subsequent cases have muddied the employee 
involvement waters.


                  employee involvement is used widely

  Today's modern workplace includes employee participation committees 
and teams of all sorts which are as unique as the workplaces in which 
they are established. From total quality management committees which 
include gainsharing to self-directed work teams, over 30,000 workplaces 
nation-wide are using cooperation to improve employee morale and 
increase productivity and competitiveness in the workplace.
  This has been acknowledged by many officials in the Clinton 
administration. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich noted: ``High-
performance workplaces are gradually replacing the factories and 
offices where Americans used to work, where decisions were made at the 
top and most employees merely followed instruction. The old top-down 
workplace doesn't work any more.''
  Perhaps even more enlightening is Vice President Al Gore's recent 
report on reinventing government. On page 26 of the report, the Vice 
President lauds the Maine 200 OSHA program because it requires employee 
involvement: ``Employer/worker safety teams in the participating firms 
are identifying--and fixing--14 times more hazards than OSHA's 
inspectors ever could have found * * *'' What the Vice President 
neglects to mention is that it is illegal for worker teams to fix 
safety problems if it is a nonunion company.
  Employee involvement is found nationwide. In my rural western 
Wisconsin district, I have several companies which use teaming. Jerome 
Foods, a major turkey farming and manufacturing company in Barron, has 
experienced substantial gains both in employee morale, customer 
service, and productivity through teaming.
  For example, in its farming operation, the company has reduced back 
stress by redesigning the equipment it uses to transfer young turkeys 
from the nursery to the main barn. As a result, employees no longer 
have to lift a 100-pound gate.
  In its manufacturing operation, the White Meat Boning Process 
Improvement Team revised how the meat is cut, added drip pans to reduce 
floor waste (improving safety) and revised inspection procedures. These 
rather minor changes save over $60,000 per year and improves food 
quality.
  In its packaging operation, 16 Jerome team members redesigned the box 
department to make it ergonomically sound. The team members added 
vacuum pumps to lift heavy loads, changed the process used in the 
department and reduced back stress by 85 percent.
  As the examples show, teaming works for employees, it works for 
companies and it will help keep America competitive into the 21st 
Century. Some who oppose the TEAM Act fear that it would erode the 
protections in the NLRA and allow companies to again establish sham 
company unions, robbing employees of any voice in the workplace.
  The TEAM Act is not an attempt to undermine unions or undermine the 
rights of individual workers. As written, the TEAM Act eliminates no 
existing language in the NLRA. The Act simply creates an exception in 
Section 8(a)(2) so that cooperation is not labeled domination. There is 
no change to the broad definition of labor organization, and we 
explicitly prohibit teams or committees from collectively bargaining 
with employers in both union and nonunion firms. The Act also reaffirms 
the fact that unionized employers can't establish teams to avoid the 
obligation to bargain with their unions. Unions have veto power over 
teams in the workplace.
  Finally, we don't allow sham company unions. Where employers have 
tried to thwart an organizing attempt by establishing a workplace 
committee and then bargaining with the committee, Section 8(a)(2) would 
render the employers actions illegal. Where an employer establishes 
teams to thwart organizing, the employer would still violate existing 
protections under Section 8 of the NLRA. Further, nothing in this bill 
would prevent nonunionzed employees from forming a union if they so 
choose.
  Mr. Chairman, the NLRA served us well for many years, but just as 
digital telecommunications has necessitated a new telecommunications 
policy, we must revise our 1930's labor law to apply to a 1990's 
workplace. As a moderate Republican, I believe that this bill provides 
the flexibility needed for high-performance workplaces while providing 
protections to ensure that our employees are treated fairly. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to support the TEAM Act.

                          ____________________