[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 98 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S7304]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GORTON (for himself, Mr. Coats, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Faircloth, 
        Mr. Warner, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Frist, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Lott, Mrs. 
        Kassebaum, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Mack, Mr. Pressler, and Mr. Nickles):
  S. 1925. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to protect 
employer rights, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources.


                  the truth in employment act of 1996

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with 
Senators Coats, Hatch, Faircloth, Warner, Gregg, Frist, Cochran, Lott, 
Kassebaum, Kyl, Mack, Pressler, and Nickles to introduce an important 
piece of legislation designed to alleviate an unfair practice affecting 
thousands of businesses in my home State of Washington and across the 
country. It is the Truth in Employment Act of 1996, which will curb the 
abuses of the union organizing tactic known as salting.
  Salting, Mr. President, occurs when unions send paid, professional 
organizers and union members into nonunion workplaces under the guise 
of seeking employment. The unions' avowed purpose in these salting 
programs is to harass the company, its employees, and to disrupt the 
jobsite until the company is either financially devastated or joins the 
union, whichever comes first. The key problem is that unions have 
trained their agents to use and abuse the procedures of the National 
Labor Relations Board as an offensive weapon against nonunion 
employers, largely by filing frivolous unfair labor practice charges.
  This fall, in Town & Country, the Supreme Court ruled that paid, 
professional union organizers are ``employees'' within the meaning of 
the National Labor Relations Act. Under the broad interpretations of 
the National Labor Relations Act, provisions prohibit employers from 
discriminating against employees because of other union interests or 
activities. This places employers, most of them small, mom-and-pop 
businesses, in a disastrous Catch-22: if they hire the union salts, 
they are subjected to outrageous internal harassment, but if they do 
not hire them, the salts cry discrimination and file frivolous charges. 
Employers are forced to make decisions about hiring, which may threaten 
the very existence of their businesses. Naturally, these businesses are 
concerned that the Supreme Court's ruling gives the unions carte 
blanche to use organizing techniques such as salting.
  I continue to hear from small businesses from across my home State on 
this issue. In Snohomish county, a mid-sized mechanical subcontractor 
has employed over 70 union members over the years to work side-by-side 
with nonunion employees pursuant to project agreements. Despite this, 
the operating engineer's union carries out a classic salting campaign 
involving 14 union applicants, one of whom is a business agent. When 
none of the applicants are hired, the union files unfair labor practice 
charges. Despite the employer's history of employing union members 
pursuant to project agreements, the NLRB's regional office finds 
sufficient merit to issue a complaint and proceed to a hearing. After 
spending $21,000 in attorneys fees, they settled for $10,500.

  Mr. President, this is just one example of the devastating economic 
effect salting has had on small businesses in my State. Small 
businesses are the backbone of our economy, providing jobs to millions 
of people. Understandably, this has become a serious issue for 
thousands of businesses across the country. Trying to defend themselves 
against frivolous discrimination charges, employers must incur tens of 
thousands of dollars in legal expenses, delays, and lost hours--time 
and resources, which could be better spent expanding businesses and 
creating economic opportunity in local communities.
  The Truth in Employment Act will amend the National Labor Relations 
Act by adding a provision that establishes that an employer is not 
required to hire a person seeking employment whose primary purpose is 
to represent a union in an organizational struggle. Under this bill 
employees will continue to be afforded their right to organize and 
engage in the activities protected under the National Labor Relations 
Act. It is in no way the intent of this bill to infringe upon those 
rights or protections. Employers will continue to be prohibited from 
discriminating on the basis of union membership or activism. The bill, 
however, curb the abuses of salting. Abuses that have caused one 
constituent in my State to declare bankruptcy, one to agree to sign a 
union agreement because he ``was too old to go through the harassment 
again,'' one who is afraid to hire more employees, one who has in 
excess of $100,000 in legal fees and another who just ``got off easy'' 
with $40,000 in legal fees. These are not large firms, Mr. President, 
they are family-run businesses.
  That is the issue, Mr. President, and that is why I am introducing 
the Truth in Employment Act. I encourage my colleagues to help me pass 
this bill and restore fairness to our small businesses.
 Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator 
Slade Gorton, who is my colleague on the Senate Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources, as a cosponsor of his bill, the Truth in Employment 
Act of 1996. This legislation addresses an issue known as salting.
  Over the last few years, professional union organizers, known as 
salts, have attempted to gain access to private property for organizing 
purposes. Sometimes, supervisors refuse to provide access to the 
property. Other times, if organizers gain access to the property, they 
have destroyed equipment and been disruptive.
  Whether or not the organizers gain access to the property, they five 
numerous charges with the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB], 
knowing that the cost of defending such groundless charges ultimately 
must be borne by the employer. This process, known as salting, is an 
abuse of our system and is nothing less than outright harassment.
  Our Federal labor law protects the right of workers to organize a 
union. It does not and it should not protect unions as they attempt to 
use our Federal agencies to harass companies.
  I recognize at this late date in our legislative session that this 
bill has little chance of becoming law in 1996. I also understand that 
concerns had been raised over how to address the salting problem 
through legislation. Because this is an important issue, though, we 
need to move forward by introducing a bill. I hope that through the 
process of hearings in our committee, we will find an acceptable 
legislative solution that all parties can accept.
                                 ______