Skip to main content

Senate HELP Committee Set to Vote on NLRB Nominee


Today, President Donald Trump's third nominee, John Ring, to the National Labor Relations Board ('NLRB') is set to have a confirmation vote on his nomination by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions ("HELP"). As always, many readers might wonder what is next or what to expect with the confirmation vote.  Let us break things down to give a quick overview of what to expect moving forward.

Ring is a labor attorney with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius with an expected tendency to side with employers in labor disputes, should he be confirmed.  President Trump nominated Ring a few months ago to fill a vacant seat on the NLRB.  Readers might recall that last week, the HELP Committee held a confirmation hearing on the nomination.  As expected, in light of the NLRB's decision to vacate its decision in Hy-Brand, many Democrats on the Committee chose to make conflict of interest matters a focal point and grilled Ring on the topic.  Despite the efforts of Democrats to make conflict of interest a major point of contention in an attempt to weaken Ring's nomination, I do not think they convinced any Republicans on the Committee to vote against the nomination.  (Remember, Republicans have majority control of the Committee.  So long as Republicans vote along party lines, Ring's nomination should clear the HELP Committee and go before the full Senate for a vote...which also has a majority of Republicans).

As I noted previously, with it being being expected that Republicans will confirm Ring's nomination, that would give Republican appointed members on the NLRB a 3 - 2 majority.  Attention would then quickly turn to whether the NLRB would take up another joint employer case which would overturn Browning-Ferris.  However, would anyone on the NLRB recuse themselves?  Assuming Emanuel did when another case came before the NLRB, that would likely put an NLRB decision at 2 - 2 (assuming all Board Members voted along 'party lines' based upon which President appointed them).  If that happened, Browning-Ferris would continue to remain in place and Republicans might have to wait until they got a 4 - 1 majority before attempting to overturn the new joint employer standard.  Or perhaps the NLRB would find a case in which no Board Member had to recuse themselves.  I think that is more likely and certainly something the three Republican appointed Board Members would prefer.  

Time will tell, but the big takeaway here is that even if Ring gets confirmed by the HELP Committee today (which is expected), and confirmed by the full Senate (which is expected), overturning Browning-Ferris in the short term is no sure thing.  Maybe Congress can act on the Save Local Business Act to avoid and issues with getting an NLRB decision to overturn Browning-Ferris?


For a CSPAN video of Ring's confirmation hearing:  https://www.c-span.org/video/?441914-1/nlrb-nominee-john-ring-testifies-confirmation-hearing

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more