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

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,...

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Vetoes Minimum Wage Hike

A few months ago, readers might remember that I pointed out that the New Jersey Legislature had voted to approve a minimum wage hike in the state .  Under the approved legislation, the minimum wage rate would rise to $10.10/hour in the next year and at least $15/hour over the next five.  (The current minimum wage rate in the state is $8.38/hour).  In that article, I had noted that the bill was then going to go before Governor Chris Christie for his approval or veto. As I had suggested previously, I thought that the Governor would likely veto the bill based upon his prior actions and comments on similar legislation.  Well, a few days ago, Governor Christie did just that and vetoed the bill on the grounds that it "would trigger an escalation of wages that will make doing business in New Jersey unfathomable."  Pointing to the increase in hourly minimum wage rates, the Governor referred to the bill as a "really radical increase."  (It is interesting to c...