[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 35 (Thursday, March 14, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1996

                                 ______


                         HON. HARRIS W. FAWELL

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 14, 1996

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the 
Injunctive Relief Amendments Act of 1996. This legislation will 
establish a uniform standard governing the award of preliminary 
injunctive relief under section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations 
Act [NLRA]. It will also allow parties against whom injunctive relief 
is sought an opportunity to review and respond to legal memoranda or 
documents presented to the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] in 
support of such relief.
  Section 10(j) of the NLRA authorizes the NLRB, upon the issuance of 
an unfair labor practice complaint, to petition a U.S. district court 
for appropriate temporary relief or restraining order. Most courts have 
followed a two-prong test for determining when section 10(j) injunctive 
relief is appropriate: first, whether there is a reasonable cause to 
believe that an unfair labor practice has occurred, and second, 
whether, injunctive relief is just and proper. The reasonable cause 
prong of the test requires the Board to produce some evidence in 
support of the petition, but does not demand that the court be 
convinced of the validity of the theory of liability. There is a split 
among the courts of appeals as to the meaning of the just and proper 
prong of the test with some circuits opting for a traditional equity 
test and others for a less demanding standard of whether an injunction 
is necessary to avoid a frustration of the remedial purposes of the 
act.
  The Injunctive Relief Amendments Act would require the Board to 
satisfy the higher traditional equity standard before a Federal court 
could issue injunctive relief under the NLRA. I believe, like in other 
areas of the law, injunctive relief under labor law should be available 
only when the traditional equity test for such relief is met. 
Certainly, the standard for granting any relief under the NLRA should 
be the same whether your case is heard in Chicago or New York or Boston 
or Detroit or San Francisco.
  The legislation also addresses my observation, harkening back to my 
own days practicing law, of how closed the process for adjudicating 
unfair labor practice complaints seems to be. There is no real 
discovery, as there would be in a lawsuit filed in court, and the 
respondent in a complaint seems to acquire information about the 
charges against him or her only by happenstance. The Injunctive Relief 
Amendments Act tales a small step to open the process by allowing 
parties to review and respond to materials submitted to the Board in 
support of seeking injunctive relief under section 10(j). My hope is 
that opening the process in this way will increase the sense of 
fairness or impartiality perceived by those who are impacted by the 
NLRB's adjudicatory processes.

                          ____________________