[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7614-S7619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               TEAMWORK FOR EMPLOYEES AND MANAGEMENT ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of S. 295, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 295) to permit labor management cooperative 
     efforts that improve America's economic competitiveness to 
     continue to thrive, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Dorgan modified amendment No. 4437, of a perfecting nature.
       Kassebaum amendment No. 4438, of a perfecting nature.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have many times made statements about my 
long interest in developing improved avenues of communication between 
employees and their bosses, often referred to as codetermination. My 
statement therefore, will be brief today.
  When employees and employers decide to enter into workplace 
committees to discuss workplace-related issues, both sides must place a 
great amount of trust and faith in the other. But society has instilled 
in workers the idea that employers are not allies but adversaries. 
Employers, who must be concerned about the health of the company, often 
view their employees in a similarly skeptical fashion.
  For that reason, labor and management should always be commended when 
they join together in sincere cooperation for the benefit of all 
concerned. It is, however, important that the two be really interested 
in cooperating with the other and that the cooperation be sincere. Both 
employees and employers must trust the other and be sure that their 
views matter to the other.
  While I do not see the need to create a strict framework for these 
conversations to take place, I do believe it is vital that employees 
feel confident they will not be punished for sharing their honest views 
with their employer. Workers must also feel that their views and 
thoughts are honestly being represented by those employee members of a 
workplace committee.
  For that reason, I strongly oppose S. 295. Workers cannot be expected 
to take part in any committee under the total control of their boss. In 
any competitive job market, what right-minded worker would take the 
risk of sharing unpopular views about his workplace when the boss has 
complete control of the work committee?
  During the 103d Congress, I introduced legislation outlining my views 
on this issue. During Labor Committee consideration of S. 295, I worked 
to develop compromise legislation to allow employees to select their 
representatives for workplace committees, to ensure that committee 
agendas are open to amendment by both labor and management and to 
prohibit unilateral termination of a workplace committee.
  Teamwork is important on the playing field or in the workplace. As a 
old Princeton rugby player, I know you don't win the scrum unless you 
and your teammates have confidence in each other and work for the 
benefit of all.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in full support of teams and 
yet, must voice my concerns with the proposed TEAM Act. It is very 
difficult not to support the initial goals of S. 295.
  Who doesn't want cooperation between employees and their managers? I 
have met with countless companies from across Washington State who have 
boasted of increased productivity and efficiency from these teams. 
Their results have been impressive and have encouraged initiative and 
employee participation.
  However, these cooperative partnerships are currently in place and 
functioning without disruption. Teams today, throughout my State and 
across American are succeeding and thriving. In fact, 96 percent of 
large employers and 75 percent of all employers report using such teams 
and employee involvement programs. These facts lead to my confusion 
over the need for additional legislation.

[[Page S7615]]

  Employee committees, work teams, and quality circles that discuss 
questions of efficiency, productivity, quality, and work practices are 
currently allowed. Nothing prevents these teams from existing today and 
their growing popularity in corporations everywhere is proof of their 
strong existence.
  I am most concerned about the delicate balance between management and 
employees established by the National Labor Relations Act and enforced 
by the National Labor Relations Board. This board has been charged with 
investigating possible section 8(a)(2) violations which have averaged 
just three violations per year for the last 22 years. In fact 20 years 
ago, the NLRB ruled against 29 section 8(a)(2) violations. Last year, 
the NLRB ruled against just 24 violations. There is no growing trend to 
stop these partnerships. There are no attempts by the NLRB to seek out 
and prevent these law-abiding employee-employer teams.
  These cases can be compared to the 7,478 cases in 1995 which forced 
employers to hire back unlawfully discharged employees and the 8,987 
cases last year in which employers had to provide employees back pay.
  I wholeheartedly support the cooperation fostered through teams in 
companies both large and small. Washington State has witnessed enormous 
benefits from these employee committees that discuss issued from 
efficiency to quality of life. Let's continue this cooperation without 
tipping the scale and sacrificing workplace democracy.
  If the employer chooses committee representatives to discuss issues 
of wages and hours, we will lose the entire management-employee 
balance. Mr. President, I have spoken with Secretary Reich about this 
issue after several meetings with concerned Washington State companies. 
I am confident that the teams now in place will remain in place and 
continue to prosper.
  Let's maintain this current system, which is working, without 
jeopardizing these critical relationships.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
Teamwork for Employees and Management Act, S. 295, better known as the 
TEAM Act. I firmly believe that to be competitive in today's 
marketplace managers and employees need to have open lines of 
communication. The TEAM Act would amend the National Labor Relations 
Act [NLRA] to clarify that an employer may establish and participate in 
worker-management organization to address matters of mutual interest; 
quality, productivity, and efficiency. In addition, the bill would not 
allow the entity to negotiate or enter into collective-bargaining 
agreements.
  Many American businesses have discovered that including their 
employees in workplace decisionmaking has increased their productivity. 
Unfortunately, a series of rulings by the National Labor Relations 
Board [NLRB] has prohibited employers from meeting with employees to 
discuss issues such as productivity, safety, and quality. While the 
NLRB made a decision based upon a fair interpretation which takes into 
account current law, this law was written at a time when company unions 
were commonly used to avoid unionization. However, I do point to the 
NLRA's failure to account for today's work force situations where there 
is an honest effort to increase productivity, safety, and quality among 
employees and employers.
  Mr. President, in my home State of Oregon we have seen tremendous 
growth and development, much of it attributed to the influence of the 
electronics industry. To be competitive in today's international 
electronics market, employees must act in partnership with management. 
These partnerships succeed in a cooperative rather than an adversarial 
environment. However, under the specter of litigation, companies are 
fearful of implementing employee involvement programs [EI] or have 
stopped them altogether. Under the current National Labor Relations 
Board interpretation of the law, the definitions are so broad as to 
prohibit or restrict implementing these employee involvement programs. 
Again, many of our Federal labor laws were written in the 1930's, at 
time when employers used company unions or sham unions to avoid 
negotiating with representatives of employee selected unions. Labor 
laws such as Davis-Bacon were written in the 1930's and we know that it 
is in dire need of reform. These laws need to be updated and employers 
must be able to discuss the workplace environment without the fear of 
litigation or violating the National Labor Relations Act.
  I believe that the TEAM Act will update and improve existing law to 
address the issue of legitimate company efforts to include employee 
input and increase competition in the marketplace. As written, S. 295 
only amends the section of the NLRA which prohibits employer-dominated 
labor organizations and specifically provides that all other rights 
under the NLRA remain intact. Organizations do not have the authority 
to enter into or negotiate collective-bargaining agreements or to amend 
existing agreements and the TEAM Act certainly does not affect an 
employee's right to choose union representation. If workers choose to 
work through union representation, the employer must recognize and then 
arbitrate with the union.
  Mr. President, my father was a longshoreman and I am an advocate for 
the common worker. Yet, I support the TEAM Act. It is not a 
contradiction to support labor and management when both mutually agree 
to improve work force efficiency, safety, and productivity; benefiting 
all those involved in the process. Give credit to today's workers who 
know their options and know when they are being treated fairly or 
unfairly. The TEAM Act secures an innovative opportunity for workers to 
contribute to the success of their companies. Let us ensure that 
workers have that option by passing the TEAM Act.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
TEAM Act.
  The future prosperity of the United States depends, in no small part, 
on fostering a cooperative partnership between labor and management, so 
that we can continue to produce the best products, provide the best 
services, and develop the best work force in the world. This 
partnership is built on the principal of equality.
  The United States is founded on this principal of equality. We, as a 
Nation, have a strong sense of fair play and of the importance of a 
level playing field. Allowing workers a real opportunity to unionize, 
to elect representation, and to bargain collectively is an important 
and basic part of these values.
  In the 1920's and 1930's companies routinely used company unions or 
employee representation plans, as they were called to rebuff attempts 
by legitimate unions to organize and seek election by the workers 
within the company.
  These company unions were created and controlled by management and 
could be disbanded or disregarded at the convenience of the company. 
The employee representatives were hand-picked so that workers would not 
democratically elect their own representatives.
  The company unions ended with the enactment of section 8(a)(2) of the 
National Labor Relations Act in 1935. Section 8(a)(2) was enacted to 
provide workers with the opportunity to be represented by someone who 
was not selected by the company, but rather someone who was 
democratically elected. The TEAM Act erodes that essential protection, 
and therefore represents a step back toward the days of company unions.
  Current law does not prevent any worker from discussing any subject 
with management. The law merely prohibits a worker or workers from 
acting as the representative of the employees, in an employer dominated 
committee, to make decisions regarding wages, hours, and conditions of 
employment. Workers can meet individually, in small groups, or as a 
whole with management to talk, express opinions, or give suggestions.
  What Section 8(2)(a) prohibits is employer creation and domination of 
employee groups where terms and conditions of employment are worked 
out. This falls under the prohibition that a company may not dominate 
or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor 
organization.

  The fear of a return to company unions as a means of preventing union 
representation is very real. In fact, a company called Executive 
Enterprises is holding conferences across the country this summer 
entitled, ``How to Stay Union-Free Into the 21st Century.'' At a 
session called ``What Your Company Can Do Now to Preserve its

[[Page S7616]]

Union-Free Status Before Organizing Starts,'' the brochure tells 
participants they will learn--how your employee participation and 
empowerment programs can be successfully modified to avoid unfair labor 
practices and aid in union avoidance. The intent could not be more 
clear, nor could a better argument be made against this legislation.
  The legislation we are considering today was written based on the 
false premise that the protections provided to workers under section 
8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act prevent cooperation in the 
workplace. Proponents argue that the National Labor Relations Act does 
not allow modern management to work with employees in a cooperative 
manner or in teams within the workplace.
  In fact, section 8(a)(2) does not need to be weakened in order for 
this cooperation or these teams to exist. Under the current protections 
provided for in the National Labor Relations Act teams are flourishing 
throughout the country.
  There are teams operating in companies across my State of Illinois. I 
have had the pleasure of talking with CEO's of Illinois companies who 
highlighted the excellent results of having workers come together on 
teams to address production problems and quality problems.
  Under current law, companies are allowed to delegate significant 
managerial responsibilities to employee work teams. Employers can put 
together employee committees to consider quality, efficiency, and 
productivity. Employers can use employee expertise to help them create 
better, higher quality products in less time and with less cost, so 
that American goods are better, cheaper, and more competitive in 
overseas markets.
  Thirty thousand companies across the Nation have some form of 
employee teams operating in their factories and shops; 96 percent of 
large employers have employee involvement programs and 75 percent of 
all workplaces have such programs. The numbers speak for themselves.

  This legislation goes far beyond allowing cooperative teams designed 
to increase quality, efficiency, and productivity. This bill would 
allow employer chosen teams to engage in give-and-take regarding wages, 
hours, and other conditions of employment. Unelected employees would 
have the ability to make decisions about the basic working conditions 
of their fellow workers.
  One of the key arguments many companies have made is that they are 
concerned that the teams operating in their shops may be found to 
violate section 8(a)(2) in some way. The Electromation case has been 
held up as an example of teams being ruled illegal by the National 
Labor Relations Board.
  The background on this case is instructive. The employees at 
Electromation were unhappy over a series of changes the employer had 
made to compensation and work rules. The employer responded by 
implementing action committees. When the employees nonetheless turned 
to an outside union for representation, the employer suspended the 
committees and blamed the union for the suspension. The action 
committees were a vehicle to prevent union representation. A Bush 
administration appointed NLRB found that, in the Electromation case, 
the company had violated the law.
  This case illustrates exactly the reason section 8(a)(2) exists, to 
protect against abuse. Under current law, employee teams are legal and 
they exist. As long as employers do not control the proceedings, 
employers can talk with employees about any issue they choose. 
Cooperation between employees and employers is vital to any successful 
business and the law in no way prevents this cooperation. The law 
merely prevents abuse.
  Let us support a strong partnership between innovative employers and 
creative employees, and continue to let this section 8(a)(2) of the 
National Labor Relations Act protect the precious balance between the 
rights of employees and employers. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
the TEAM Act.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong 
opposition of S. 295, the teamwork for employees and management bill. 
This bill, the so-called TEAM bill, is part of the continuing 
Republican assault on working families. It would virtually nullify 
section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, which forms the 
basis for collective bargaining procedures in the United States, and 
prohibits employers from dominating or interfering with the formation 
of labor organizations. Labor organizations, as defined by the NLRA, 
are composed of employee participants and exist for the purpose of 
dealing with employers regarding grievances, labor disputes, wages, 
rates of pay, hours of employment, or working conditions.
  The TEAM Act would gut section 8(a)(2). In the name of promoting 
collaboration and communication between workers and managers, this bill 
would allow companies to dictate the membership and agenda of workplace 
teams. These teams would make recommendations to management on issues 
of quality, efficiency, and productivity, but could also discuss 
broader issues related to wages, hours, and working conditions.
  Mr. President, I want to make it clear that I have no problem with 
the concept of employers and employees working together in crosscutting 
groups to develop innovative ways to improve quality or increase 
efficiency in the workplace. I have visited workplaces in my State that 
have implemented quality circles and labor-management committees, and 
have been impressed with their results.
  An example is Master Lock, Inc., which I toured several summers ago. 
This leading Wisconsin company is a shining example of how employer-
employee cooperation has led to improved working relationships and 
increased competitiveness. The company's joint labor and management 
coalition, comprised of various committees which address issues such as 
health and safety and ergonomics, has the support of the union and has 
resulted in improved employee morale and productivity.
  Indeed, there has been a vast proliferation of such committees, or 
teams, in recent years. These organizations are useful, and legal, as 
long as they do not interfere with the collective bargaining process. 
Current law allows employee involvement, which I wholeheartedly 
support.
  What I do object to is the notion that companies should appoint all 
members of workplace teams, particularly in cases in which teams are 
given broad reign to discuss issues that have been the domain of 
collective bargaining for the last 60 years. Under this bill, employers 
would have the right not only to select who belongs to teams, but would 
also be able to remove those members at any time, for any reason. 
Management could set the agenda, including discussion of wages, hours, 
and working conditions, as long as the employee members did not make 
official recommendations on behalf of their colleagues on these issues. 
This, I am convinced, would undermine the collective bargaining 
process.
  Senator Robert Wagner, the original sponsor of the NLRA, recognized 
that employees are empowered only when they select their own 
representatives in a democratic process. More than 60 years ago, he 
said, ``[only] representatives who are not subservient to the employer 
with whom they deal can act freely in the interest of employees. Simple 
common sense tells us that a man does not possess this freedom when he 
bargains with those who control his source of livelihood.'' And yet, 
the TEAM Act threatens to take precisely that freedom away from 
America's workers. Allowing companies to select all worker 
representatives and dominate team activities would be a significant 
step backward in workplace democracy. It would take us back to the days 
of company unions.

  Supporters of the TEAM Act are quick to point out that the language 
of the bill specifically prohibits teams from engaging in collective 
bargaining with management. But in fact, employees who serve on 
management-selected teams will represent their coworkers. That is a 
labor organization, and that is precisely what Congress intended to 
prevent when it passed the NLRA. In fact, Congress has repeatedly 
rejected the notion of company-dominated labor organizations--in the 
1930's, and again in 1947 during debate on the Taft-Hartley Act.
  This bill threatens real, democratically elected worker 
representation. Even though the bill says that management-dominated 
teams would not be allowed to negotiate with employers

[[Page S7617]]

about wages, benefits, or working conditions, teams can still discuss 
all these issues, as long as they don't make recommendations to 
management on behalf of workers. It is not difficult to imagine 
situations in which managers who prefer dealing with self-selected 
teams would place more weight on the ideas of teams than on the 
proposals of unions. In this way, the bill threatens the viability of 
unions.
  Labor experts agree. The bipartisan Dunlop Commission, made up of 
leading business, union, and academic representatives, conducted an in-
depth analysis of labor-management relations in 1993 and 1994. One of 
their recommendations, upon completion of the study, was: ``The law 
should continue to make it illegal to set up or operate company-
dominated forms of employee representation.'' Members of the Dunlop 
Commission, including four former Cabinet Secretaries, the CEO of 
Xerox, a representative from the small business community, and several 
academics, unanimously oppose the TEAM Act. I'm sure all of my 
colleagues have also read the letter signed by more than 400 of the 
Nation's labor law and industrial relations professors opposing this 
bill. They say in their letter, ``we are persuaded that passage of the 
TEAM Act would quickly lead to the return of the kind of employer-
dominated employee organization and employee representation plans which 
existed in the 1920's and 1930's.''
  And in fact, that is the real goal of the TEAM Act. Management-
dominated teams are antidemocratic mechanisms for companies to fight 
real worker-selected representative labor organizations. They are anti-
union tools. Research has shown that employers who establish teams, or 
employee involvement plans, after union organizing campaigns are more 
likely to defeat unions than those who do not. Without exception, 
managers surveyed in a 1989 Harvard Business School study agreed that 
employee representation plans were ``a valuable and proven 
defense against unionization.''

  Edward Miller, a former chairman of the NLRB and a current 
management-side labor lawyer, testified in 1993 before the Dunlop 
Commission, ``While I represent management, I do not kid myself. If 
section 8(a)(2) were repealed, I have no doubt that in not too many 
months or years sham company unions would again recur.''
  There are many misconceptions among my colleagues about current labor 
law, and about what this bill would do. Fred Feinstein, the general 
counsel of the NLRB, investigates possible violations of the NLRA and 
prosecutes meritorious claims. Mr. Feinstein recently responded to a 
letter from the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, to 
clarify what in his opinion were some inaccurate statements about the 
NLRA and the TEAM Act, made last week on the Senate floor. In his 
letter, Mr. Feinstein explained that, under current law, it is not 
illegal for employers to supply office supplies and meeting space to 
employee organizations, or to talk to employees or seek suggestions. It 
is not illegal for employers to discuss flexible work schedules with 
employees, or to seek input from them about improving productivity, or 
to talk to them about tornado warning procedures. Despite assertions to 
the contrary made by my colleagues last week, none of these procedures 
is illegal.
  The bottom line, according to the general counsel of the NLRB, is 
that ``employees can provide information or ideas without engaging in 
dealing under the NLRA. Further, employees can make proposals through 
an organization, to which the employer may respond, where the employees 
have control of the structure and function of the organization.''
  If this Congress really wanted to empower workers and encourage 
employee involvement and communication with management, it would allow 
workers to select their own representatives to teams, so that they 
would be accountable only to their fellow employees. More importantly, 
it would empower the NLRB to impose more powerful sanctions on 
companies that unlawfully discharge employees involved in union 
organizing. According to the Dunlop Commission, union supporters are 
fired illegally in one out of four elections. This rate is five times 
higher than it was in the 1950's, and remedies often take place several 
years after the event.
  The real purpose of this bill is to undermine workplace democracy, 
and to bash on unions, not to empower employees. I am pleased that 
President Clinton has taken a stand on behalf of working men and women 
by pledging to veto this unwise and destructive bill. But I hope the 
bill never reaches his desk. I urge my colleagues to support 
representative democracy in the workplace, and to oppose the TEAM Act. 
Let's respect the right of employees to select their own 
representation, just as we have insisted on the right of citizens to 
select their own representatives to this body for over 200 years.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in 
favor of the TEAM Act, S. 295. I want to commend our able chairman of 
the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum, for her 
vision and tenacity in shepherding this bill to the floor.
  I have closely examined the arguments made by both labor and 
management on the issue of teaming, and the state of current law in 
this area.
  In my view, Congress has a responsibility to provide an unambiguous 
safe harbor for employers to utilize employee participation groups, 
quality circles, and other team concepts to advance the competitiveness 
of U.S. industry. The health of our economy and the jobs on which we 
all depend are at stake in this struggle.
  The National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] has been left with the 
difficult task of administering a 61-year-old statute which has changed 
little since its enactment in 1935. The state of labor management 
relations was very different in those days, with unions struggling to 
secure their place in our industrial fabric.
  The National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] was a logical response to 
this turbulent period in our labor management history. The provision of 
the NLRA aimed at preventing employers from creating sham unions, 
section 8(a)(2), was a direct response to this challenging period.
  It is this very provision and how it is being interpreted today by 
the NLRB that is the cause for this debate and the legislation now 
before the Senate.
  Most labor management strife faded from the industrial landscape long 
ago. In contrast, today, American businesses and their employees are in 
the fight of their lives to remain competitive in this global 
marketplace. We have lost tens of thousands of high-paying 
manufacturing jobs over this past decade to foreign competition. 
Unfortunately, I can identify countless casualties in my own State of 
Rhode Island.
  This troubling circumstance has forced American industry to produce 
better products, to become more efficient and to increase productivity. 
This painful, but necessary reexamination has placed an absolute 
premium on labor-management cooperation.
  Those firms that have been able to succeed and adapt to this new 
environment have increasingly relied upon employee participation 
groups, quality circles, and other team concepts to strengthen 
productivity, weed out inefficiency, and respond rapidly to changing 
consumer attitudes and demands.
  Mr. President, enactment of the TEAM Act would simply conform labor 
law with what is already occurring on shop floors throughout America. 
The fact is, employee involvement committees, quality circles and other 
team concepts exist in some 30,000 workplaces across the country. All 
but a small percentage of our largest employers stake their very 
survival on the ability to form team mechanisms and employee 
participation groups.

  Here is the problem in a nutshell. Section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA 
prohibits employers from interfering with the formation and/or 
organization of any ``labor organization,'' or from contributing 
financial support to such entities. On the surface that seems 
reasonable.
  However, the definition of ``labor organization'' makes illegal most 
of the employee involvement committees in operation today, since it 
stipulates that any organization which deals with hours of employment 
or conditions of work is a ``labor organization.''
  The fact is that in today's complex workplace conditions of 
employment can be very broadly construed to apply

[[Page S7618]]

to how an assembly line is configured, to the kind of protective gear 
employees must wear, or even to attendance policies.
  Faced with this ambiguous situation, employers need to have a safe 
harbor within which such employee involvement committees can operate 
without fear of NLRB intervention.
  The Team Act is that safe harbor. It would authorize the use of 
employee participation teams to help strengthen the competitiveness of 
American firms, while making clear that such mechanisms cannot be used 
to subvert or replace the collective bargaining process, or an 
employee's right to union representation.
  Employers and employees must be empowered with the necessary tools to 
compete in a global economy. S. 295 is a logical, balanced response, 
which contains the necessary safeguards to protect unions and workers, 
while at the same time strengthening needed employer-employee 
cooperation.
  I am hopeful President Clinton will reconsider his staunch opposition 
to this critical legislation.


                           Amendment No. 4437

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment 4437 offered 
by the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan]. There will be 1 minute 
of debate on the amendment equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is not a disagreement in this 
Chamber about whether there ought to be teamwork in the workplace. We 
believe there ought to be opportunities for management and workers--
those who own businesses and those who work in the businesses--to get 
together and establish conditions to work together to become more 
efficient and to find ways to do things in a better way.
  There is a lack of clarity as a result of NLRB decisions. I have 
offered an amendment that tries to establish additional clarity that 
permits workplace cooperation. There is a right way to do this and a 
wrong way to do this.
  The amendment that I have offered, I think, is the right way to 
enhance teamwork in the workplace to achieve those goals. I believe the 
underlying legislation that comes to the floor of the Senate does much 
more than that in a negative way.
  So I ask the Chamber to support the amendment that I have offered and 
to oppose the proposal that is brought to the floor of the Senate in 
the underlying piece of legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, regarding the Dorgan amendment, I 
would just say that I think we are better off the way things are than 
to try to develop a rigidity that I think would occur in the amendment 
offered by the Senator from North Dakota. It requires a committee 
structure that is very rigid and lacks the flexibility that we were 
trying to address. I do not believe it in any way answers the concerns 
and the questions that have been raised by the actions of the NLRB 
regarding a lack of understanding on how employees get together under 
the National Labor Relations Act. That was the purpose of the 
legislation before in the TEAM Act, and I will address my amendment 
later.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The question is on agreeing to 
amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. On this question, the yeas 
and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. 
Cochran] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 36, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 189 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--63

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cochran
       
  The amendment (No. 4437), as modified, was rejected.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4438

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on agreeing to amendment No. 4438 offered by the Senator from Kansas 
[Mrs. Kassebaum]. There will now be 1 minute of debate on the amendment 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
  The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum].
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, my amendment is identical with the 
House-passed language. I want to make a couple of points about why I 
believe the TEAM Act is important. One, it applies only to nonunion 
settings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold her comments until 
we can get order in the Chamber.
  The Senator may proceed.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. This applies only to nonunion settings.
  It has been misrepresented by some as applying to union companies as 
well.
  Second, the purpose for this is in order to say to employers that 
they should be free to discuss with employees those issues of concern 
to both. It is to address an environment in the workplace that will 
help us meet the new reality of our competition and our productivity 
today that is important for good communication. It is a bill that only 
represents common sense. It is not in any way designed to be a 
destroyer of the unions, and I urge support for my amendment and the 
TEAM legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  May we have order in the Senate, please.
  The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is a cosmetic change to the 
underlying bad bill. Effectively, the TEAM Act would apply to 90 
percent of American businesses. The fact is 30,000 companies now have 
these joint, cooperative programs in workplaces across the country. 
They cover 75 percent of all the employers, 96 percent of the Nation's 
biggest employers. There have been 224 cases that have been brought 
over the period of the last 4 years. There have only been 15 cases 
decided by the NLRB--only 15 cases; 30,000 incidents of cooperation and 
only 15 cases in the last 4 years.
  This is a solution to a problem that does not exist. Basically, what 
you are doing with it is opening up the very real possibilities of 
companies being able to dictate who will speak for the employees on 
working conditions and all other matters that concern them in the 
workplace. It puts management in control of both sides of the 
bargaining table. It means management will be talking to itself instead 
of talking honestly with workers, and it does not deserve to pass. It 
deserves the veto that it will receive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the amendment.
  Mr. COHEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested. Is 
there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

[[Page S7619]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. 
Cochran] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--38

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cochran
       
  The amendment (No. 4438) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate bill is 
considered read a third time, and the House bill, H.R. 743, is 
discharged from the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The clerk 
will report the House bill.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A 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.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all after the 
enacting clause of H.R. 743 is stricken, the text of the S. 295, as 
amended, is inserted in lieu thereof, and the bill is considered read a 
third time.
  The question is, Shall the bill, H.R. 743, as amended, pass? A 
rollcall vote has not yet been requested.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill as amended, 
pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. 
Cochran] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 191 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cochran
       
  The bill (H.R. 743), as amended, was passed, as follows:

       Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives 
     (H.R. 743) entitled ``An Act 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.'', do pass with 
     the following amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Teamwork for Employees and 
     Managers Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the escalating demands of global competition have 
     compelled an increasing number of employers in the United 
     States to make dramatic changes in workplace and employer-
     employee relationships;
       (2) such changes involve an enhanced role for the employee 
     in workplace decisionmaking, often referred to as ``Employee 
     Involvement'', which has taken many forms, including self-
     managed work teams, quality-of-worklife, quality circles, and 
     joint labor-management committees;
       (3) Employee Involvement programs, which operate 
     successfully in both unionized and nonunionized settings, 
     have been established by over 80 percent of the largest 
     employers in the United States and exist in an estimated 
     30,000 workplaces;
       (4) in addition to enhancing the productivity and 
     competitiveness of businesses in the United States, Employee 
     Involvement programs have had a positive impact on the lives 
     of such employees, better enabling them to reach their 
     potential in the workforce;
       (5) recognizing that foreign competitors have successfully 
     utilized Employee Involvement techniques, the Congress has 
     consistently joined business, labor and academic leaders in 
     encouraging and recognizing successful Employee Involvement 
     programs in the workplace through such incentives as the 
     Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award;
       (6) employers who have instituted legitimate Employee 
     Involvement programs have not done so to interfere with the 
     collective bargaining rights guaranteed by the labor laws, as 
     was the case in the 1930's when employers established 
     deceptive sham ``company unions'' to avoid unionization; and
       (7) Employee Involvement is currently threatened by legal 
     interpretations of the prohibition against employer-dominated 
     ``company unions''.
       (b) Purposes.--The purpose of this Act is--
       (1) to protect legitimate Employee Involvement programs 
     against government interference;
       (2) to preserve existing protections against deceptive, 
     coercive employer practices; and
       (3) to allow legitimate Employee Involvement programs, in 
     which workers may discuss issues involving terms and 
     conditions of employment, to continue to evolve and 
     proliferate.

     SEC. 3. EMPLOYER EXCEPTION.

       Section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act is 
     amended by striking the semicolon and inserting the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That it shall not constitute 
     or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under this 
     paragraph for an employer to establish, assist, maintain, or 
     participate in any organization or entity of any kind, in 
     which employees who participate to at least the same extent 
     practicable as representatives of management participate, to 
     address matters of mutual interest, including, but not 
     limited to, issues of quality, productivity, efficiency, and 
     safety and health, and which does not have, claim, or seek 
     authority to be the exclusive bargaining representative of 
     the employees or to negotiate or enter into collective 
     bargaining agreements with the employer or to amend existing 
     collective bargaining agreements between the employer and any 
     labor organization, except that in a case in which a labor 
     organization is the representative of such employees as 
     provided in section 9(a), this proviso shall not apply;''.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON EFFECT OF ACT.

       Nothing in this Act shall affect employee rights and 
     responsibilities contained in provisions other than section 
     8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________