[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 38 (Monday, March 30, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E510-E511]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


         FAIRNESS FOR SMALL BUSINESS AND EMPLOYEES ACT OF 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. LOUIS STOKES

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 26, 1998

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3246) to 
     assist small businesses and labor organizations in defending 
     themselves against government bureaucracy; to ensure that 
     employees entitled to reinstatement get their jobs back 
     quickly; to protect the right of employers to have a hearing 
     to present their case in certain representation cases; and to 
     prevent the use of the National Labor Relations Act for the 
     purpose of disrupting or inflicting economic harm on 
     employers:

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 3246, 
mistakenly called the Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act.
  I use the adverb ``mistakenly'' because I do not believe that this 
bill would provide fairness for either small businesses or for 
employees.
  This proposed legislation would allow employers to discriminate 
against any applicant who he or she determines have been either a union 
organizer or an activist in an union, and who is suspected of engaging 
in union activity as the ``primary purpose'' of seeking employment.
  For 60 years, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) made rulings, 
acting under the authority of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 
that clearly prohibited discrimination against workers based on their 
union membership or activities. The principles supporting these rulings 
have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (NLRB v. Town and Country 
Electric, 1955.)
  Title I of H.R. 3246 would amend the National Labor Relations Act to 
permit employers to refuse employment, or to fire, a person who is not 
a ``bona fide employee applicant'', if the employer believes that the 
applicant is not 50% motivated to work for the employer. Both of these 
conditions are, of course, subjective measures and would thus, give 
employers unrestricted ability to exclude from hiring any person 
suspected of union activity.
  Title II would restrain the right of workers to organize by making it 
more difficult for a union to be recognized as the bargaining 
representative at a single facility of a multi-facility employer. The 
NLRB has, for over thirty five years, recognized that each separate 
workplace of an employer is an ``appropriate'' unit for collective 
bargaining. Forcing workers to organize all sites of a single employer 
in order to have union representation at one site of course presents a 
nearly unsurmountable obstacle to having any representation. Instead, 
title II imposes on the NLRB a set of subjective tests, and lengthy 
hearings by which the board is to determine the appropriate bargaining 
unit.
  However, title III is partly acceptable. The positive part is that it 
would require the NLRB to decide wrongful termination cases within one 
year. However, there are no enforcement measures and this title needs 
to be amended to require the NLRB to reinstate a discharged worker 
should a preliminary investigation indicate that there is reasonable 
cause to believe that the discharge violated the NRLA.
  Lastly, title IV of H.R. 3264 would have the effect of severely 
limiting the NLRB's ability to enforce worker protection rights at 
small business sites. It would require the NLRB to pay attorney fees 
and expenses of any small business that prevails in administrative and 
judicial proceedings, regardless of whether the NLRB's position was 
substantially justified or reasonable.

[[Page E511]]

  Earlier, I stated that H.R. 3246 was not fair to either small 
business or employees. I believe that the moral strength, and the 
economic vigor of this country derive from a healthy balance of power 
between employer and employee. H.R. 3246 would destroy that balance by 
removing some of the fundamental protections of workers in this 
country. For all of the reasons above, I urge my distinguished 
colleagues to vote against H.R. 3246.

                          ____________________