[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E922-E923]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  INTRODUCTION OF THE FAIR HEARING ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. HARRIS W. FAWELL

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 14, 1997

  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Fair Hearing 
Act, legislation which will require the National Labor Relations Board 
[NLRB] to conduct hearings to determine the appropriateness of 
bargaining units in cases where a labor organization attempts to 
organize employees at one or more facilities of a multifacility 
employer and where there is no agreement as to the appropriate 
bargaining unit.
  As many Members know, our attention was drawn to this issue by the 
NLRB's proposed rulemaking of several years ago announcing the Board's 
intention to impose a rule on the appropriateness of single location 
bargaining units that would have applied to virtually every industry. 
That proposal would have extended to all employers, except for those in 
the specifically excluded utility industry, construction industry and 
seagoing crews in the maritime industry. Fortunately, the NLRB was 
prevented from pursuing this disruptive rulemaking

[[Page E923]]

through language included in the Labor-HHS-Education funding bill for 
the past 2 fiscal years.
  While I have long decried the litigation orientation of many of this 
nation's labor and employment laws, I do have concerns about rulemaking 
the area of bargaining unit determinations as such determinations, by 
their nature, require the type of fact specific analysis that only 
case-by-case adjudication allows. I believe strongly that the 
imprecision of a blanket rule limiting the factors considered material 
to determining the appropriateness of a single location unit detracts 
from the National Labor Relations Act's goal of promoting stability in 
labor-management relations. Thus, I feel equally strongly that 
legislation is necessary to ensure that a specific analysis of the 
appropriateness of a bargaining unit given the facts and circumstances 
of a particular case, is conducted through a hearing.
  A hearing process regarding the appropriateness of single facility 
bargaining units will allow a more complete examination of the 
comprehensive approach to human resource policies and procedures 
pursued by many employers today that may influence the bargaining unit 
determination. To limit consideration of relevant factors potentially 
would undermine the ability of employers to develop flexible solutions 
to the needs and demands of their work forces and would greatly 
increase the cost, complexity and uncertainty of labor-management 
relations where centralized personnel policies are maintained by 
employers with numerous locations.
  The Fair Hearing Act recognizes both the realities of human resource 
management in today's competitive economic environment and the 
complexity of bargaining unit determinations, particularly in cases 
where multifacility employers are involved. The legislation does not 
attempt to define when a single location bargaining unit is 
appropriate, but merely requires the NLRB to consider all of the 
relevant factors in making that determination. I urge my colleagues to 
support this important legislation.

                          ____________________