[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 14773]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  RECOGNIZING THE UNANIMOUS DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 
                       BOARD IN CROWN CORK & SEAL

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN A. BOEHNER

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 26, 2001

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the attention of 
the House of Representatives, a remarkable and unanimous ruling of the 
bipartisan National Labor Relations Board--known as Crown Cork & Seal, 
334 NLRB No. 92 (July 20, 2001)--that resolves an issue that many of us 
wrestled with throughout the 1990s. The issue is the legality of 
workplace teams under which employees work with their employers to 
resolve on-the-job issues including workplace health and safety, 
efficiency and productivity, training, and diversity. Prior to the 
Crown Cork & Seal ruling, there was some ambiguity as to whether these 
teams may be considered employer-dominated ``labor organizations'' 
under the National Labor Relations Act.
  Those who were here during the 104th Congress are probably familiar 
with this issue. Thanks in large part to the efforts of my predecessor 
as Chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, William F. 
Goodling, and the former Chairman of the Employer-Employee Relations 
Subcommittee of that Committee, Harris Fawell, the Congress passed 
lelgislation--the ``Teamwork for Employees and Managers Act'' (TEAM)--
aimed at addressing the ambiguity that existed. Disappointingly, 
President Clinton later vetoed that legislation and left the ambiguity 
in place.
  Many of us could not understand why the issue was even contentious. 
The sham ``company unions'' which existed during the early years of 
collective bargaining--and which necessitated the inclusion of Section 
8(a)(2) in the NLRA, making it an unfair labor practice for an employer 
to ``dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any 
labor organization or contribute . . . support to it''--are largely a 
relic of history. Yet the Board in its infamous Electromation case 
reaffirmed its interpretation of the statute's broad definition of 
``labor organization'' to include an enormous variety of workplace 
teams. Subsequent attempts to ``clarify'' its ruling only muddied the 
waters further.
  Unfortunately, because of the Board's holding in Electromation, 
employers were forced to make a difficult decision. On the one hand, 
they knew they needed the assistance of their employees in order to be 
competitive, but if they acted on that need they opened themselves up 
to litigation. American firms in every sector of the economy continue 
to learn that to compete successfully in a global economy, they need to 
follow the lead of the high-tech sector by engaging the full talents of 
their employees as never before. Today's employer-employee relationship 
is one of cooperation as opposed to the confrontational relations of 
previous generations.
  The NLRB's decision in Crown Cork & Seal reflects this cooperative 
relationship by adopting a common-sense approach. While protecting the 
prohibition against company unions, the Board has ruled that a 
workplace team is not a ``labor organization'' if all it is really 
doing is assuming a function that previously was performed by a 
manager. That, in a nutshell, is what employee involvement is all 
about.
  This decision will allow for the growth of employee involvement, 
which will, in turn, lead to a sea of change in the structuring of the 
employer-employee relationship. Companies will now be comfortable 
implementing progressive human resources practices, because they know 
it will benefit both the company and its employees through open 
communications and by pushing decision-making downward within the 
organization.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate the bipartisan 
Board that issued this ruling unanimously--Republican Chairman Peter 
Hurtgen and Democrats John Truesdale, Wilma Liebman and Dennis Walsh. 
We should all applaud them for rishing above the partisan past of this 
issue. I sincerely hope that this landmark ruling points the way to a 
less contentious, more bipartisan approach in Washington in all of 
these areas where we need to upgrade laws that were passed in a 
previous century to apply to our workplace of today.

                          ____________________