November 13, 2023

Dear Colleague:

This Congress, I am introducing legislation to help the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) manage their huge caseload. Each year, the NLRB
requests additional funding to help them administer and manage their
caseload. This legislative reform simply makes adjustments for inflation
in the financial jurisdictional thresholds of the NLRB, most of which
were set in 1959. The NLRB can still adjudicate special cases below
these thresholds, just as they do today. It is crucial that we provide
the NLRB with this freedom. I urge you to cosponsor this bill. Two
former NLRB Chairs support this change.

-   The NLRB is the government agency designed to settle labor disputes
    between unions and management. In 1959, Congress passed a law to
    give NLRB jurisdiction over businesses based on gross receipts. Once
    a business passes that threshold of gross receipts, it is subject to
    intervention by the NLRB. Businesses below the threshold are subject
    to actions within state law, instead of the NLRB.

-   Without an adjustment for inflation, businesses and the NLRB have
    been caught in "bracket creep." As inflation has increased since
    1959, the NLRB has acquired jurisdiction over much smaller
    businesses than was ever intended, escalating the expense and
    workload for the NLRB as well as for business. These now include
    very small businesses, for whom the cost of such intervention is
    unbearable. More than 20% of the NLRB's workload now are these very
    small businesses. For example, NLRB has jurisdiction over non-retail
    businesses with gross receipts over \$50,000. An inflation
    adjustment would raise that threshold to \$302,001. The NLRB has
    jurisdiction over retail businesses and restaurants doing more than
    \$500,000 worth of business, but adjusting for inflation since 1959
    would raise this to over \$3 million. Congress never intended to
    subject smaller businesses to such a heavy regulatory hammer.

The NLRB is powerless to change its jurisdiction without an act of
Congress. This legislation will do exactly that. By indexing the
jurisdiction to the rate of inflation, the NLRB could again focus upon
the larger businesses for whom the law was originally written. Small
businesses have been severely burdened by dealing with the far-off NLRB
instead of their local state courts (examples follow).

This bill's simple adjustment both frees NLRB to deal with significant
cases truly affecting interstate commerce, and also removes the problems
very small businesses have with NLRB oversight (see examples). If you
have any questions, please call Kevin Johnson in my office at (202)
225-2132.

> Very Truly Yours,

Ernest J. Istook

MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Examples of Small Business NLRB Cases

-   Larry Burns, of Houston, Texas (8 employees). Two charges filed
    against his business by the NLRB. One was thrown out, the other
    settled for \$160 (1 days pay). Larry Burns spent \$11,000 in
    attorneys fees and wasted time fighting the NLRB when these problems
    could have been solved cheaper and easier in state courts. Also, Mr.
    Burns under state law, could have recovered ½ of his attorney's fees
    under loser pays (which helps eliminate frivolous charges).

-   Randall Borman, of Evansville, Indiana (4 employees). Three charges
    were filed with the NLRB against Mr. Borman's business. All were
    dismissed. He could have recovered all of his legal fees under
    Indiana state law. Instead, he lost \$7,500 in attorney's fees and
    lost revenue and had to lay off workers to cover this expense.

Examples of Delays in Processing NLRB Cases

-   Julian Burns of Charlotte, North Carolina (23 employees). His case
    should be heard by the NLRB, however, the NLRB's workload is so
    overloaded with cases from very small businesses that it took 2½
    years to hear his case. Rather than getting his day in court, he
    settled for \$10,000, after paying \$35,000 in attorney's fees, and
    \$250,000 for losses in manpower and reduced workforce, for a total
    cost of \$295,000.