{"id":1539,"date":"2019-07-30T06:00:30","date_gmt":"2019-07-30T06:00:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.uniontrack.com\/blog\/?p=1539"},"modified":"2019-08-02T13:53:00","modified_gmt":"2019-08-02T13:53:00","slug":"peter-robb-nlrb","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/uniontrack.com\/blog\/peter-robb-nlrb","title":{"rendered":"Peter Robb at the NLRB Is Pushing an Agenda. Here Is What Unions Need to Know."},"content":{"rendered":"

Ken Green
\nCEO\/Founder
\nUnionTrack, Inc.<\/a><\/p>\n

In December 2017, Peter B. Robb was confirmed as General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). His appointment put unions on alert because of Robb\u2019s pro-business history with labor issues.<\/p>\n

In his previous role at the NLRB under President Ronald Reagan, Peter Robb was a key figure in aiding and defending the administration\u2019s 1981 firing of more than 11,000 striking air traffic controllers and disbanding of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO).<\/p>\n

That was a move that Joseph McCartin<\/a>, executive director of the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University, labeled as \u201cone of the most important events\u201d in 20th century US labor history.<\/p>\n

That Robb was a key player in the anti-worker ruling back then positions him as a threat to today\u2019s unions, and his first 18 months as general counsel of the NLRB have shown his sympathies in favor of employers haven\u2019t changed.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe seems to be on a mission that\u2019s really unprecedented,\u201d said William Gould<\/a>, former chairman of the NLRB. Gould asserts that Robb\u2019s dictates to review multiple pro-union rules and rulings as quickly as possible show he is pushing for a \u201cfundamental reevaluation\u201d of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).<\/p>\n

And he has the power to do so because, in his role as general counsel, he can push an anti-union agenda by asking the board to change existing precedent.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A Recent Ruling Makes It Easier for Employers to Cease Bargaining With Unions<\/h2>\n

As just one example of the direction Robb is taking the NLRB, consider the news from early July that the board was modifying the legal framework governing \u201canticipatory withdrawal.\u201d Bloomberg Law reporter Robert Iafolla<\/a> has done a great job of covering the story.<\/p>\n

Anticipatory withdrawal is when an employer stops negotiating with a union before a collective-bargaining agreement expires. This can happen when the employer feels the union has lost majority support. A precedent set in 2001 put the onus on the employer to prove the union lacked majority support; otherwise, the employer faced an unfair labor practice charge.<\/p>\n

The new ruling, set in the case Johnson Controls, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 20, lets employers cease negotiations with a union up to 90 days before a CBA expires. Unions can respond, but not with a charge of unfair labor practice. Instead, the union has 45 days to reestablish majority support through a secret-ballot election.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ruling fits with the NLRB\u2019s ongoing efforts to make it easier for dissatisfied workers to kick out their unions,\u201d Iafolla reports. \u201cGOP board members have said they\u2019re open to reconsidering current precedent on when workers can oust their union. The board also is considering changes to other restrictions on elections to decertify unions.\u201d<\/p>\n

In an earlier story<\/a>, Iafolla notes how, in the current fiscal year, the NLRB is reviving unfair labor practice cases against unions at seven times the rate it is reviving such cases against employers<\/p>\n

A Brief History of Robb\u2019s Tenure as General Counsel<\/h2>\n

Almost immediately upon assuming his role as general counsel, Robb issued a Mandatory Submissions Memo outlining the categories of cases issued by the NLRB under President Obama, for which he may seek to overturn precedent. The majority of those cases were wins for unions. As such, the implication of the memo is that Robb wants those pro-union rulings reversed, posits Mark Gruenberg<\/a>, head of the Washington, D.C., bureau of People’s World.<\/p>\n

In response to the memo, U.S. Senators Patty Murray and Elizabeth Warren<\/a> wrote Robb a letter expressing their concerns. \u201cOne of your responsibilities as the sole enforcer of the NLRA is to adapt the statute to ever-changing economic conditions,\u201d they wrote. \u201cHowever, your memo, striking in its breadth, suggests that your office will scale back its efforts to discharge that responsibility.\u201d<\/p>\n

Their concerns are certainly warranted. Some precedents listed for review in the memo are:<\/p>\n