59–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–232 

PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION 

ACT OF 2007 

JULY 13, 2007.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, from the Committee on 

Education and Labor, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 980] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 980) to provide collective bargaining rights for public 

safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions, 

having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 

amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act 

of 2007’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) Labor-management relationships and partnerships are based on trust, mutual respect, open communication, bilateral consensual problem solving, and 

shared accountability. In many public safety agencies it is the union that provides the institutional stability as elected leaders and appointees come and go. 

(2) State and local public safety officers play an essential role in the efforts 

of the United States to detect, prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks, and 

to respond to natural disasters, hazardous materials, and other mass casualty 

incidents. As the first to arrive on scene, State and local public safety officers 

must be prepared to protect life and property and to preserve scarce and vital 

Federal resources, avoid substantial and debilitating interference with interVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:24 Jul 15, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
2 

state and foreign commerce, and to protect the national security of the United 

States. Public safety employer-employee cooperation is essential in meeting 

these needs and is, therefore, in the National interest. 

(3) The health and safety of the Nation and the best interests of public safety 

employers and employees may be furthered by the settlement of issues through 

the processes of collective bargaining. 

(4) The Federal Government is in the position to encourage conciliation, mediation, and voluntary arbitration to aid and encourage employers and the representatives of their employees to reach and maintain agreements concerning 

rates of pay, hours, and working conditions, and to make all reasonable efforts 

through negotiations to settle their differences by mutual agreement reached 

through collective bargaining or by such methods as may be provided for in any 

applicable agreement for the settlement of disputes. 

(5) The potential absence of adequate cooperation between public safety employers and employees has implications for the security of employees, impacts 

the upgrading of police and fire services of local communities, the health and 

well-being of public safety officers, and the morale of the fire and police departments, and can affect interstate and intrastate commerce. 

(6) Many States and localities already provide public safety officers with collective bargaining rights comparable to or greater than the rights and responsibilities set forth in this Act, and such State laws should be respected. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) The term ‘‘Authority’’ means the Federal Labor Relations Authority. 

(2) The term ‘‘public safety officer’’—

(A) means an employee of a public safety agency who is a law enforcement officer, a firefighter, or emergency medical services personnel; 

(B) includes an individual who is temporarily transferred to a supervisory 

or management position; and 

(C) does not include a permanent supervisory or management employee. 

(3) The term ‘‘firefighter’’ has the same meaning given the term ‘‘employee in 

fire protection activities’’ defined in section 3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(29 U.S.C. 203(y)). 

(4) The term ‘‘emergency medical services personnel’’ means an individual 

who provides out-of-hospital emergency medical care, including an emergency 

medical technician, paramedic, or first responder. 

(5) The term ‘‘law enforcement officer’’ has the same meaning given such term 

in section 1204(5) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 

(42 U.S.C. 3796b(5)). 

(6) The term ‘‘supervisory employee’’ has the meaning given such term, or a 

substantially equivalent term, under applicable State law on the date of enactment of this Act. In the absence of such State law on the date of enactment 

of this Act, the term means an individual, employed by a public safety employer, who—

(A) has the authority in the interest of the employer to hire, direct, assign, promote, reward, transfer, furlough, lay off, recall, suspend, discipline, 

or remove public safety officers, to adjust their grievances, or to effectively 

recommend such action, if the exercise of the authority is not merely routine or clerical in nature but requires the consistent exercise of independent 

judgment; and 

(B) devotes a preponderance of employment time exercising such authority. 

(7) The term ‘‘management employee’’ has the meaning given such term, or 

a substantially equivalent term, under applicable State law in effect on the date 

of enactment of this Act. If no such State law is in effect, the term means an 

individual employed by a public safety employer in a position that requires or 

authorizes the individual to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of 

the employer. 

(8) The terms ‘‘employer’’ and ‘‘public safety agency’’ mean any State, political 

subdivision of a State, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession 

of the United States that employs public safety officers. 

(9) The term ‘‘labor organization’’ means an organization composed in whole 

or in part of employees, in which employees participate, and the purpose of 

which is to represent such employees before public safety agencies concerning 

grievances, conditions of employment and related matters. 

(10) The term ‘‘substantially provides’’ means substantial compliance with the 

rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b). 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
3 

SEC. 4. DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. 

(a) DETERMINATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act, the Authority shall make a determination as to whether a State substantially provides for the rights and responsibilities described in subsection (b). In 

making such determinations, the Authority shall consider the opinion of affected employers and labor organizations. Where the Authority is notified by an 

employer and an affected labor organization that both parties agree that the 

law applicable to such employer and labor organization substantially provides 

for the rights and responsibilities described in subsection (b), the Authority 

shall give such agreement weight to the maximum extent practicable in making 

its determination under this subsection. 

(2) SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATIONS.—(A) A determination made pursuant to 

paragraph (1) shall remain in effect unless and until the Authority issues a subsequent determination, in accordance with the procedures set forth in subparagraph (B). 

(B) An employer or a labor organization may submit a written request for a 

subsequent determination, on the basis of a material change in State law or its 

interpretation. If the Authority determines that a material change in State law 

or its interpretation has occurred, the Authority shall issue a subsequent determination not later than 30 days after receipt of such request. 

(3) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—Any person aggrieved by a determination of the Authority under this section may, during the 60-day period beginning on the date 

on which the determination was made, petition any United States Court of Appeals in the circuit in which the person resides or transacts business or in District of Columbia circuit, for judicial review. In any judicial review of a determination by the Authority, the procedures contained in section 7123(c) of title 

5, United States Code, shall be followed. 

(b) RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.—In making a determination described in subsection (a), the Authority shall consider a State’s law to provide adequate rights and 

responsibilities unless such law fails to substantially provide rights and responsibilities comparable to or greater than each of the following: 

(1) Granting public safety officers the right to form and join a labor organization, which may exclude management and supervisory employees, that is, or 

seeks to be, recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees. 

(2) Requiring public safety employers to recognize the employees’ labor organization (freely chosen by a majority of the employees), to agree to bargain with 

the labor organization, and to commit any agreements to writing in a contract 

or memorandum of understanding. 

(3) Providing for bargaining over hours, wages, and terms and conditions of 

employment. 

(4) Making available an interest impasse resolution mechanism, such as factfinding, mediation, arbitration, or comparable procedures. 

(5) Requiring enforcement through State courts of—

(A) all rights, responsibilities, and protections provided by State law and 

enumerated in this subsection; and 

(B) any written contract or memorandum of understanding. 

(c) FAILURE TO MEET REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—If the Authority determines, acting pursuant to its authority 

under subsection (a), that a State does not substantially provide for the rights 

and responsibilities described in subsection (b), such State shall be subject to 

the regulations and procedures described in section 5. 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Paragraph (1) shall apply in each State on the later 

of—

(A) 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act; or 

(B) the date of the end of the first regular session of the legislature of 

that State that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 5. ROLE OF THE AUTHORITY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, the Authority shall issue regulations establishing procedures which provide the 

rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b) for public safety employers and 

officers in States which the Authority has determined, acting pursuant to its authority under section 4(a), do not substantially provide for such rights and responsibilities. 

(b) ROLE OF THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY.—The Authority, to the 

extent provided in this Act and in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Authority, shall—


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
4 

(1) determine the appropriateness of units for labor organization representation; 

(2) supervise and conduct elections to determine whether a labor organization 

has been selected as an exclusive representative by a voting majority of the employees in an appropriate unit; 

(3) resolve issues relating to the duty to bargain in good faith; 

(4) conduct hearings and resolve complaints of unfair labor practices; 

(5) resolve exceptions to the awards of arbitrators; 

(6) protect the right of each employee to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear of penalty 

or reprisal, and protect each employee in the exercise of such right; 

(7) if the Authority finds that any State is not in compliance with the regulations prescribed under subsection (a), direct compliance by such State by order; 

and 

(8) take such other actions as are necessary and appropriate to effectively administer this Act, including issuing subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary or other evidence from 

any place in the United States, and administering oaths, taking or ordering the 

taking of depositions, ordering responses to written interrogatories, and receiving and examining witnesses. 

(c) ENFORCEMENT.—

(1) PETITION BY AUTHORITY.—If a State fails to comply with a final order 

issued by the Authority, the Authority shall petition any United States Court 

of Appeals with jurisdiction over the parties or the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to enforce any final orders under this 

section, and for appropriate temporary relief or a restraining order. Any petition 

under this section shall be conducted in accordance with section 7123(c) and (d) 

of title 5, United States Code, except that any final order of the Authority with 

respect to questions of fact shall be found to be conclusive unless the court determines that the Authority’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. 

(2) RIGHT OF ACTION.—Unless the Authority has filed a petition for enforcement as provided in paragraph (1), any interested party shall have the right 

to file suit against any political subdivision of a State, or, if the State has 

waived its sovereign immunity, against the State itself, in any district court of 

the United States of competent jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the regulations issued by the Authority pursuant to subsection (b), to enforce compliance 

with any order issued by the Authority pursuant to this section, or to enforce 

section 6 of this Act. The right provided by this paragraph to bring a suit to 

enforce compliance with any order issued by the Authority pursuant to this section shall terminate upon the filing of a petition seeking the same relief by the 

Authority under paragraph (1). 

SEC. 6. STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS PROHIBITED. 

Notwithstanding any rights or responsibilities provided under State law or under 

regulations issued by the Authority under section 5—

(1) a public safety employer may not engage in a lockout of public safety officers; 

(2) public safety officers may not engage in a strike against such public safety 

employer; and 

(3) a labor organization may not call for a strike by public safety officers 

against their public safety employer. 

SEC. 7. EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS AND AGREEMENTS. 

This Act and the regulations issued under this Act shall not be construed to invalidate a certification, recognition, collective bargaining agreement, or memorandum 

of understanding which has been issued, approved, or ratified by any public employee relations board or commission or by any State or political subdivision or its 

agents (management officials) in effect on the day before the date of enactment of 

this Act, or the results of any election held before the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 8. CONSTRUCTION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT. 

(a) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act or the regulations issued under this Act 

shall be construed—

(1) to preempt or limit the remedies, rights, and procedures of any law of any 

State or political subdivision of any State or jurisdiction that substantially provides greater or comparable rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b); 

(2) to prevent a State from enforcing a State law which prohibits employers 

and labor organizations from negotiating provisions in a labor agreement that 

require union membership or payment of union fees as a condition of employment; 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
5 

(3) to preempt any State law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act 

that substantially provides for the rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b) solely because—

(A) such State law permits an employee to appear in his or her own behalf with respect to his or her employment relations with the public safety 

agency involved; 

(B) such State law excludes from its coverage employees of a state militia 

or national guard; 

(C) such rights and responsibilities have not been extended to other categories of employees covered by this Act, in which case the Authority shall 

only exercise the powers provided in section 5 of this Act with respect to 

those categories of employees who have not been afforded the rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b); or 

(D) such laws or ordinances provide that a contract or memorandum of 

understanding between a public safety employer and a labor organization 

must be presented to a legislative body as part of the process for approving 

such contract or memorandum of understanding; 

(4) to permit parties subject to the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 

151 et seq.) and the regulations under such Act to negotiate provisions that 

would prohibit an employee from engaging in part-time employment or volunteer activities during off-duty hours; 

(5) to require a State to rescind or preempt laws or ordinances of any of its 

political subdivisions if such laws substantially provide rights and responsibilities for public safety officers that are comparable to or greater than the rights 

and responsibilities enumerated in section 4(b) of this Act; or 

(6) preempt any State law that substantially provides for the rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b) solely because such law does not require 

bargaining with respect to pension and retirement benefits. 

(b) PARTIAL EXEMPTION.—A State may exempt from its State law, or from the requirements established under this Act, a political subdivision of the State that has 

a population of less than 5,000 or that employs fewer than 25 full time employees. 

For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘employees’’ includes each individual employed by the political subdivision except any individual elected by popular vote or 

appointed to serve on a board or commission. 

(c) ENFORCEMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of the Act, and in the 

absence of a waiver of a State’s sovereign immunity, the Authority shall have the 

exclusive power to enforce the provisions of this Act with respect to public safety 

officers employed by a State. 

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry 

out the provisions of this Act. 

COVER PAGE

Provided by the Office of Legislative Counsel. 

PURPOSE

COMMITTEE ACTION INCLUDING LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND VOTES IN

COMMITTEE

104TH CONGRESS

On April 7, 1995, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act was first introduced as the Public Safety Employer-Employee Relations Act of 1995, H.R. 1484 by Representative Dale Kildee (D–MI). It was referred to the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and the House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities where it was referred to the Subcommittee 

on Employer-Employee Relations. H.R 1484 had 50 co-sponsors. 

Neither the Committee nor the Subcommittee took any action on 

the bill. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
6 

105TH CONGRESS

On April 21, 1997, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 1997 was re-introduced in the 105th Congress as 

H.R. 1173 by Representative Dale Kildee (D–MI), joined by Representative Robert Ney (R–OH) as a lead co-sponsor. H.R 1173 was 

referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce 

where it was referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee 

Relations. The legislation had 204 co-sponsors, both Democratic 

and Republican. Neither full Committee nor the Subcommittee took 

any action on the bill. 

106TH CONGRESS

On March 11, 1999, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 1999 was re-introduced by Representatives Dale 

Kildee (D–MI) and Robert Ney (R–OH) as H.R. 1093. It was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce 

where it was referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee 

Relations. H.R. 1093 garnered 247 co-sponsors both Democratic 

and Republican. A companion bill, S. 1016 was introduced in the 

Senate by Senator Mike DeWine (R–OH). 

Subcommittee hearing on the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act 

On May 9, 2000, the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee led by Chairman John Boehner (R–OH), conducted the 

first legislative hearing on the Public Safety Employer-Employee 

Cooperation Act of 1999. The hearing featured testimony from witnesses, including: Representative Dale Kildee (D–MI); Dr. Frederick Nesbitt, the Director of Governmental Affairs for the International Association of Fire Fighters; Mr. Gilbert G. Gallegos, the 

National President of the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of 

Police; Mr. Kenneth Lyons, National President of the International 

Brotherhood of Police Officers; Mr. R. Theodore Clark on behalf of 

the National Public Employer Labor Relations Association; Mayor 

Gene Kinsey of Grand Junction, Colorado; and Mr. George Costello, 

a Legislative Attorney of the Congressional Research Service. Testimony was submitted for the hearing record by Mr. Robert Scully, 

Executive Director of the National Association of Police Organizations. 

H.R. 1093 received no further consideration after the May 9, 

2000, Subcommittee hearing. 

Senate hearing on the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act 

On July 25, 2000 the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee led by Chairman James Jeffords held a 

hearing on S. 1016, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. The hearing featured testimony from witnesses, including: 

Mr. Gerald Flynn, National Vice President for the International 

Brotherhood of Police Officers; Dr. Frederick H. Nesbitt, Director 

of Governmental Affairs for the International Association of Fire 

Fighters; Mr. Gilbert G. Gallegos, the National President of the 

Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police; Mr. R. Theodore 

Clark, on behalf of the National League of Cities, U.S. Conference 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
7 

of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Public Employer Labor Relations Association, and the International Personnel Management Association; Mr. Sam Cabral, President of the 

International Union of Police Associations, AFL–CIO and Mr. Reed 

Larson, President of the National Right to Work Committee. Testimony was submitted for the record by Mr. Robert T. Scully, Executive Director of the National Association of Police Organizations, 

the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and Mr. David S. Smith, Solicitor, Federal Labor Relations Authority. 

S. 1016 received no further consideration after the July 25, 2000 

HELP Committee hearing. 

107TH CONGRESS

On April 4, 2001, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2001 was re-introduced by Representatives Dale Kildee 

(D–MI) and Robert Ney (R–OH) as H.R. 1475. It was referred to 

the House Committee on Education and the Workforce where it 

was referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations. H.R. 1475 garnered 226 Democratic and Republican co-sponsors. Senator Judd Gregg (R–NH), joined by Senators Ted Kennedy 

(D–MA) and Evan Bayh (D–IN) introduced the Senate companion, 

S. 952 on May 24, 2001. S. 952 had 23 Democratic and Republican 

co-sponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP). 

On September 19, 2001, Senate HELP Committee chairman Ted 

Kennedy (D–MA) reported S. 952 favorably out of Committee without amendment and without a written 2 report. On October 31, 

2001 Senator Thomas Daschle (D–SD) offered the Public Safety 

Employer-Employee Cooperation Act as amendment number 2044 

to H.R. 3061, the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 

2002. On November 6, 2001 Senator Daschle requested a vote to 

close debate on the amendment. The cloture vote was defeated by 

a vote of 56–44, and Senator Daschle subsequently withdrew the 

amendment. 

108TH CONGRESS

On February 13, 2003, Representatives Dale Kildee and Robert 

Ney re-introduced the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2003, H.R. 814. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce where it was referred to 

the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations. H.R. 814 garnered 180 Democratic and Republican co-sponsors. Neither the full 

Committee nor the Subcommittee took any action on the bill. 

On March 12, 2003, Senator Judd Gregg re-introduced the companion bill, S. 606. The bill had 28 Democratic and Republican cosponsors and was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor and Pensions. Senator Gregg, the HELP Committee chairman and the sponsor of S. 606 reported the bill favorably out of 

Committee without amendment. No further action was taken on 

the bill. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
8 

109TH CONGRESS

On March 10, 2005, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2005 was introduced by Representatives Dale Kildee (D–MI) and Bob Ney (R–OH) as H.R. 1249. It was referred to 

the House Committee on Education and the Workforce where it 

was referred to the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations. H.R. 1249 garnered 121 co-sponsors, both Democratic and 

Republican. Senator Judd Gregg reintroduced the companion bill, 

S.513 on March 3, 2005 which had 21 Democratic and Republican 

cosponsors. Neither the House nor the Senate took further action 

on the Public Safety Employer-Employee Act of 2005. 

110TH CONGRESS

On February 12 2007, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007 was introduced as H.R. 980 by Representative Dale Kildee (D–MI), joined by Representative John Duncan 

(R–TN). H.R. 980 has 271 Democratic and Republican cosponsors. 

The bill was referred to the House Committee on Education and 

Labor where it was referred to the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions. 

Subcommittee hearing on the H.R. 980 

On June 5, 2007, the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 

Labor, and Pensions (HELP), led by Chairman Robert Andrews (D– NJ), conducted a legislative hearing on H.R. 980, ‘‘Ensuring Collective Bargaining Rights for First Responders: H.R. 980, The Public 

Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007.’’ This hearing 

consisted of two panels. The first panel included the bill’s sponsor 

Representative Dale Kildee. The second panel consisted of: Mr. 

Kevin O’Connor Assistant to the General President of the International Association of Fire fighters; Mayor Wayne Seybold of Marion, Indiana; Mr. Paul Nunziato, a New York/New Jersey Port Authority Police Officer and Vice President of the Police Benevolent 

Association in New York City, New York; Professor William Banks 

of Syracuse University; and Mr. R. Theodore Clark, Jr., speaking 

on behalf of the National Public Employer Labor Relations Association; and Neil Reichenberg, Executive Director of International 

Public Management Association for Human Resources. 

Full committee mark-up of the Public Safety Employer-Employee 

Cooperation Act of 2007 

On June 20, 2007, the Committee on Education and Labor met 

to markup H.R. 980, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007. The Committee adopted by voice vote an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Kildee and 

reported the bill favorably as amended by a vote of 42–1 to the 

House of Representatives. 

The Kildee amendment in the nature of a substitute contained 

minor technical changes, including the following modifications to 

H.R. 980: • If an employer and an affected labor organization notify the 

Authority that a state’s law substantially provides public safety officers with the basic bargaining rights as defined in Section 4(b), the Authority shall give such agreement weight to 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
9 

the maximum extent practicable in making its determination 

under this subsection. 

• When determining whether or not a state law complies with 

H.R. 980, the Authority shall consider whether the state substantially provides the rights and responsibilities comparable 

to or greater than each of the rights defined in Section 4(b)(1)– 4(b)(5). 

• The FLRA has the authority to supervise and conduct elections to determine whether a labor organization has been selected by a majority of employees. 

• Neither public safety officers nor any labor organization representing those public safety employees may engage in a strike 

against such public safety employer. 

• H.R. 980 shall not preempt any state law that substantially 

provides the rights in Section 4(b) solely because the law does 

not require bargaining with respect to pension and retirement 

benefits. 

Representative Mark Souder (R–IN) offered an amendment in 

the nature of a substitute which would have required that employers or public safety agencies only be permitted to recognize a labor 

organization if that labor organization was chosen through a secret 

ballot election. H.R. 980, however, imposes no such requirement. It 

requires that public safety agencies recognize employees’ freelymade majority choice and does not specify the process by which 

such recognition is achieved. So long as employees freely choose 

and the majority’s choice is effectuated, the state or locality may 

decide how to discern 4 the employees’ majority choice, whether via 

secret ballot elections, majority signup processes, or other means. 

Representative Souder withdrew his amendment. 

SUMMARY

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007 

would extend to public safety officers (i.e., fire fighters; law enforcement officers; and emergency medical services personnel) the right 

to bargain collectively with their employers. 

In addition to guaranteeing the right of public safety officers to 

form and join a union, H.R. 980: (1) guarantees these workers the 

right to bargain collectively over hours, wages, and conditions of 

employment; (2) provides for enforcement of contracts through federal courts; (3) excludes management and supervisory employees 

(chiefs and assistant chiefs) but retains the right of fire lieutenants 

and captains, as well as police sergeants to join a bargaining unit; 

(4) protects all existing certification, recognitions, elections, collective bargaining agreements and memorandums of understanding; 

(5) outlaws strikes and provides for dispute resolution mechanisms, 

such as mediation, fact finding or arbitration to resolve disputes; 

(6) exempts all states with a state collective bargaining law for 

public safety officers equal to or greater than the bill’s basic minimum standards; (7) provides states with two years to implement 

a basic collective bargaining law; (8) protects state right-to-work 

laws; (9) protects the rights of volunteer fire fighters; and (10) allows states to exempt localities with a population of less than 5,000 

or that employ fewer than 25 full time employees. 

Most states already meet or exceed the basic collective bargaining rights established under H.R. 980, and therefore would be 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
10 

1The FLRA, created by the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute is an independent agency responsible for administering the labor relations program for approximately 1.9 

million nonpostal Federal employees worldwide. Approximately 1.1 million of these Federal employees are represented in 2,200 bargaining units. The Authority is charged by statute with establishing policies and guidelines relating to Federal sector labor-management relations; resolving disputes arising among Federal agencies, unions, and employees; and ensuring compliance 

with Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. 2 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. 

3 45 U.S.C. 151–188 (as a condition of federal financial assistance to the employer). 4 27 F.R. 551; 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 521. 5P.L. 104–1. 

exempt from its provisions, so long as those rights are guaranteed. 

To the extent that a state or locality does not meet the minimum 

protections of H.R. 980, the Federal Labor Relations Authority 

(FLRA) 1 would administer the bill’s provisions protecting the collective bargaining rights of public safety officers. 

STATEMENT AND COMMITTEE VIEWS

The Committee on Education and Labor of the 110th Congress 

is committed to strengthening the middle class, ensuring the full 

protection of the rights of workers, and fostering cooperative labormanagement relationships. On March 1, 2007, this Congress took 

a major step in that effort with the passage of the Employee Free 

Choice Act, H.R. 800. 

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act is another step in that effort. It will ensure that all public safety employees have the right to discuss with their employers wages, benefits, health and safety issues, and finding ways to better protect the 

public safety. While states and cities and towns have historically 

managed their own labor relations, approximately twenty-one 

states do not provide full collective bargaining rights for all public 

safety officers. Given the demands and pressures of their jobs, public safety employees ought to have a strong voice at work. 

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act is about 

giving every first responder a voice on critical issues like safety on 

the job and on whether public services are being provided in the 

most efficient and effective manner. It is intended to improve communication and cooperation between rank-and-file public safety 

employees and management in order to create more cohesive and 

coordinated operations. Strengthening the voice of public safety 

employees will improve public safety and provide greater security 

for our country. 

Fundamental fairness 

The right to collectively bargain is an internationally recognized 

human right. H.R. 980 provides fundamental fairness to the nation’s public safety employees. It ensures that all public safety employees have the right to collectively bargain, a right that the vast 

majority of Americans already enjoy. American workers, including 

private sector employees,2 transportation workers,3 federal government employees 4 and congressional staff 5 already have the right 

to bargain collectively with employers. H.R. 980 will put public 

safety officers on equal footing with other employees and provide 

them with the legal right to negotiate with employers over basic 

issues such as hours, wages, workplace conditions, and health and 

safety issues. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
11 

6 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. 

7 Id. 8 Executive Order 10988 was reaffirmed and strengthened by President Richard Nixon in 

1970, and codified by Congress as part of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. 9 5 U.S.C. 71.7101(a)(1)(A)(B)(C). 

10P.L. 104–1. 11 North Carolina and Virginia prohibit bargaining altogether; Alabama, Arkansas, South 

Carolina, and Tennessee permit bargaining by local option but prohibit legally enforceable conContinued 

Collective bargaining in the private and public sectors 

For over 70 years, collective bargaining has allowed labor and 

management to work together to improve job conditions and enhance productivity. Through collective bargaining, labor and management have led the way on many critical improvements in today’s workplace, such as health benefits, sick leave, and workplace 

safety. In the U.S., the right is protected by the National Labor Relations Act 6 for the private sector. Section 1 of the NLRA declares 

‘‘it is the policy of the United States’’ to ‘‘encourage the practice 

and procedure of collective bargaining and to protect the exercise 

by workers of full freedom of association, self-organizing and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose 

of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment, or 

other mutual aid or protection.’’ 7

While collective bargaining in the public sector was once a controversial issue, it is now widely accepted. On January 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10988, ‘‘EmployeeManagement Cooperation in the Federal Service.’’ 8 The Executive 

Order declares that ‘‘participation of employees in the formulation 

and implementation of personnel policies affecting them contributes to effective conduct of public business.’’ The Federal Service 

Labor-Management Relations Statute likewise declares: 

Congress finds that experience in both private and public employment indicates that the statutory protection of 

the right of employees to organize, bargain collectively, 

and participate through labor organizations by their own 

choosing in decisions which affect them—safeguards the 

public interest, contributes to the effective conduct of public interest, and facilitates and encourages amicable settlements of disputes between employees and their employers 

involving conditions of employment.9

Over twelve years ago, Congress extended the right to collective 

bargaining to congressional employees, including the Capitol Police 

Force through the Congressional Accountability Act.10 With the enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act, state and local 

government employees remain as one of the largest segments of the 

American workforce lacking the guaranteed right to enter into collective bargaining agreements with their employers. 

Historically, states and localities have possessed the authority to 

manage their own labor relations. Consequently, protection for 

state and local public employees is a patchwork, riddled with holes. 

Many states have adopted their own labor-management relations 

statutes affording collective bargaining rights to state and local 

public employees. However, approximately twenty-one states do not 

fully protect the collective bargaining rights of public safety employees.11


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
12 

tracts; Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Texas and West Virginia permit bargaining by local option only; and Idaho, Missouri, 

Utah, and Wyoming require bargaining for fire fighters, but not for law enforcement. 12Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 1999, S. 1016, hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, 106th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1999) (written 

testimony of Robert Scully, Executive Director, National Association of Police Organizations, at 

1) [hereinafter Scully Testimony]. 13The Public Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, 106 Cong., 2nd Sess. (2000) (written testimony of Frederick H. 

Nesbitt, Director of Governmental Affairs, International Association of Fire Fighters, at 5) [hereinafter Nesbitt Testimony]. 14 Ensuring Collective Bargaining Rights for First Responders: H.R. 980, The Public Safety 

Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007, hearing before the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor & Pensions, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007) (written testimony of Kevin O’Connor, at 2) [hereinafter O’Connor Testimony]. 

Extending the right to collectively bargain has practical economic 

benefits for public safety employees, and it has major implications 

for homeland security and public safety. Workers who join together 

to collectively bargain are able to achieve better wages, benefits 

and working conditions. When compared to the rest of the nation, 

the pay, benefits and working conditions where public safety employees cannot collectively bargain tend to be substandard.12 Bargaining in the public safety arena is unique in that it has an emphasis on health and safety issues. The primary concern for public 

safety officers at the bargaining table is how they can do their jobs 

more effectively and more safely.13

In a post–9/11 world, there has been a significant national policy 

emphasis on facilitating the ability of first responders to deal with, 

coordinate responses to, and prevent emergencies such as terrorist 

attacks or natural disasters, as well as these workers’ responsibility for on-going day-to-day public safety issues. Ensuring that 

public safety officers can fulfill this need necessitates the right to 

a meaningful voice on the job. Providing collective bargaining 

rights to all public safety employees will improve first responders’

ability to protect themselves, their families, communities and this 

country. 

Collective bargaining protects the health and safety of public safety 

employees 

Public safety employees serve in some of the country’s most dangerous, strenuous and stressful jobs. Every year, more than 75,000 

fire fighters are injured on the job. In his testimony before the 

HELP Subcommittee’s hearing on June 5, 2007, Kevin O’Conner, 

Assistant to the General President of IAFF echoed this reality, 

‘‘one-third of our members are injured in the line of duty. In 2007, 

approximately 100 of my brothers and sisters will pay the ultimate 

price. Thousands of times a day, in every corner of America, an 

alarm will ring in the firehouse and men and women will bravely 

put themselves in harm’s way.’’ 14 Sadly this point was brought 

home on June 18, 2007 when nine brave fire fighters in Charleston, 

South Carolina gave their own lives to save the lives of others. 

Having a voice on the job facilitates rank-and-file input into workplace safety and the efficient and effective provision of public safety 

services. 

The American Federal of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) represents over 60,000 corrections officers and has 

decades of experience representing these employees in labor-management relations. AFSCME submitted a statement for the record 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
13 

15Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 1999, S. 1016, hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, 106th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1999) (written 

testimony of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, at 2) [hereinafter AFSCME Testimony]. 16 AFSCME Testimony, at 2. 17 AFSCME Testimony, at 1. 18The Public Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, 106 Cong., 2nd Sess. (2000) (written testimony of Gilbert Gallegos, 

National President of the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, at 3) [hereinafter Gallegos 

Testimony]. 19 Nesbitt Testimony, at 5. 20 Id. 

of the July 25, 2000, Senate HELP Committee hearing on the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.15 In the statement, 

AFSCME noted that corrections officers work in dangerous conditions with the most violent members of our society and they risk 

their lives to ensure that the public is held safe from these individuals. Experience ‘‘has demonstrated that the collective bargaining 

process is a tried and true method of improving communications 

among line corrections officers and upper management. The result 

is safety and more effective corrections systems.’’ 16 H.R. 980 would 

extend collective bargaining rights to approximately 100,000 state 

and local government corrections officers who reside in states that 

deny public employees collective bargaining rights.17

Fire and police departments and local communities benefit immeasurably from productive partnerships between employers and 

employees, as does the federal government, which has a compelling 

interest in ensuring that public safety units are properly staffed, 

trained, and equipped to secure the homeland by protecting communities, and responding in times of crisis. States that do not recognize the right of public safety officers to collectively bargain experience recruitment and retention difficulties, and face diminished 

employee morale. These problems can result in diminished security 

and safety. 

Gilbert Gallegos, National President of the Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police notes that ‘‘public safety service is delivered 

by rank-and-file officers, therefore it is their observations and experiences which will refine the delivery of the service. To exclude 

them from having any input relating to their job—particularly 

when their lives are on the line is not only unfair to the officers, 

but also to the public they are sworn to protect.’’ 18

Collective bargaining benefits the lives of public safety officers 

and their families. In his May 9, 2000 testimony before the House 

Education Workforce Committee, Employer-Employee Relations 

Subcommittee hearing, Frederick Nesbitt, Director of Governmental Affairs for the International Association of Fire Fighters 

highlighted the stories of those who will benefit from the enactment of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.19

He discusses the plight of Matt Moseley and the Atlanta fire department. According to Dr. Nesbitt, the department was operating 

without adequate staffing, and fire fighters were forced to use defective breathing apparatus and the city government refused to 

meet with the fire fighter local union to hear their concerns. The 

city only agreed to work with the union after Moseley publicly discussed the problems facing the fire department.20

Nesbitt also discusses the story of Michael Regan of the Fairfax 

County Fire Department. Lieutenant Regan is part of an Urban 

Search and Rescue Team that is an integral part of our nation’s reVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:24 Jul 15, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
14 

21 Id. 22O’Connor Testimony, at 6. 23 Briefing on H.R. 980, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act before the Education and Labor Committee staff, May 31, 2007. 24Scully Testimony, at 3. 25Scully Testimony, at 2. 26 Id. 27 Id. 

sponse to disaster abroad and at home. In addition to responding 

to the Pentagon attack on September 11, 2001, Lieutenant Regan 

has been sent by the federal government to places all over the 

world to find victims of natural disasters, and to rescue victims of 

terrorism. Despite the experience and expertise Lieutenant Regan 

has garnered throughout his career, he is still denied the right to 

use this experience to discuss and collectively bargain safety concerns with his employer, and potentially provide greater protection 

to the Fairfax County community.21

David Foote, a fire fighter in LeMay Township, Missouri was 

fired for telling a meeting of the local Republican Party about the 

fire department’s refusal to replace unsafe personal protective gear. 

Foote filed suit and the court ordered that he be rehired and receive in excess of $400,000 in damages.22

Michael Staples, Assistant Fire Marshall in Arlington County, 

Virginia and President of the Arlington Professional Firefighters & 

Paramedics Association, Local 2800 (APFPA) of the IAFF reported 

that his department faces recruitment and retention difficulties because the Commonwealth of Virginia refuses to collectively bargain 

with public safety employees. The reality that fire fighters in nearby Maryland and Washington, D.C. are able to collectively bargain, 

makes it difficult for Virginia fire departments to recruit and retain 

experienced fire fighters. Inexperience and untested public safety 

departments can directly impact the safety of the fire fighters and 

that of the community.23

Law enforcement officers perform under strenuous conditions 

and often work long hours under difficult circumstances involving 

the potential use of deadly force. Each year, an average of 160 officers die in the line of duty, 62,552 officers are assaulted, and 

21,433 suffer on-the-job injuries.24 Collective bargaining gives police officers a voice in improving their working conditions, which 

not only affect the ability to recruit and retrain qualified law enforcement officers, but can directly jeopardize officer safety and increase the risk of serious injury or death.25

In his testimony before the Senate HELP Committee’s July 25, 

2000, hearing on the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, Robert Scully, Executive Director of the National Association of Police Organizations discussed the situation in a state 

where police officers did not have the right to collective bargaining. 

Officers in this state ‘‘were not always able to communicate with 

their superiors in life-threatening situations,’’ 26 because the municipality used radio transmitters that had limited coverage. Despite the evident safety risks, Officers fear losing their jobs so they 

often choose not to speak up. Scully testified that ‘‘history proves 

that the denial of the right of officers to collectively bargain and 

the absence of dispute-resolution mechanisms can cause poor employee morale, inadequate working conditions, and less effective 

law enforcement.’’ 27


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
15 

28 Id. 29 Ensuring Collective Bargaining Rights for First Responders: H.R. 980, The Public Safety 

Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007, hearing before the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor & Pensions, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007) (written testimony of Paul Nunziato) 

[hereinafter Nunziato Testimony]. 30The PATH command center includes the subway system running between New York and 

New Jersey. 31The Port Authority Police Department suffered the worst single day loss of life of any law 

enforcement agency in the history of the United States. 32 Nunziato Testimony, at 2. 

Accordingly, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation 

Act ensures that collective bargaining is universally available to 

those public safety employees who want it. The purpose of the bill 

is to have laws in all fifty states that give public safety employees 

access to a bargaining process that fosters cooperation between 

first responders and their employers, and creates an atmosphere in 

which all parties are stakeholders in improving safety and making 

communities more secure. To achieve this goal, the Act simply requires that: public safety officers have the right to join a union; 

employers must recognize the union; the parties are required to 

bargain over hours, wages and terms of conditions of employment; 

impasse resolution mechanisms must be made available; and 

agreements can be enforced through state courts. 

The success of collective bargaining in the public safety sector 

Collective bargaining has proven the most effective and democratic means by which labor and management have achieved cooperation, improved employment conditions, developed fair and 

reasonable disciplinary procedures and increased productivity.28

The HELP Subcommittee heard from Paul Nunziato, a police officer with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police 

Department during the Subcommittee’s June 5, 2007 hearing on 

the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.29 Officer 

Nunziato testified about his firsthand knowledge of the crucial role 

public safety officers play in our nation’s counterterrorism and 

homeland security efforts. He testified that collective bargaining 

rights are critical to the protection of the health and welfare of 

public safety officers and their families. Officer Nunziato based 

these observations upon his own experience as a police officer who 

responded to the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade 

Center. While only 10 Port Authority police officers were working 

at the World Trade Center on September 11th, within minutes of 

the attack, police officers mobilized from all thirteen police commands to respond to the attacks. Of the 23 members of Officer 

Nunziato’s rollcall at the PATH 30 command that day, 13 members 

lost their lives.31

The events of September 11th clearly demonstrated that collective bargaining agreements provide substantial security to police 

officers and their families. Officer Nunziato’s partner, Donald 

McIntyre lost his life in the World Trade Center evacuation. In 

large part due to the benefits the union negotiated for its membership, Officer McIntyre’s wife and two children will not have to 

worry about paying bills or receiving healthcare.32 Officer Nunziato 

testified that this gave him and his fellow police officers a sense 

of security as they risk their lives on a daily basis. 

The success of cooperative public sector workplace partnerships, 

which can be fostered through collective bargaining, was also eviVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:24 Jul 15, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
16 

33 ‘‘Working Together for Public Service: Final Report,’’ U.S. Secretary of Labor’s Task Force 

on Excellence in State and Local Government Through Labor-Management Cooperation (1996). 34O’Connor Testimony, at 4. 35 Id. at 5. 36 Id. 37One of Marion, Indiana’s largest manufacturing plants, Thomson Television Picture Tube 

plant closed in March 2004. 38 Ensuring Collective Bargaining Rights for First Responders: H.R. 980, The Public Safety 

Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007, hearing before the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor & Pensions, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007) (written testimony of Wayne Seybold) 

[hereinafter Seybold Testimony]. 39Seybold Testimony, at 2. 

denced in the findings of a Department of Labor task force report.33

The task force analyzed nearly 50 examples of cooperative approaches to labor-management relationships and found that movement toward employee participation and cooperation between labor 

and management improves the delivery and quality of services. 

Collective bargaining in the public safety sector improves the delivery of emergency services. In his testimony before the HELP 

Subcommittee’s June 5, 2007, hearing, Kevin O’Connor highlighted 

the impact collective bargaining has for fire fighters. According to 

the Fire Chief of the Phoenix, Arizona Fire Department, ‘‘when 

labor and management leaders work together to build mutual 

trust, mutual respect, and a strong commitment to service, it helps 

focus the fire department on what is truly most important . . . providing excellent service to the customers and strong support to the 

members who serve them.’’ 34 In New York City, a five-year collective bargaining agreement was ratified in 2006 to include a longterm solution to the Department’s staffing shortage. 

Before collective bargaining, the Omaha, Nebraska Fire Department lost one fire fighter in the line of duty every five years. The 

collective bargaining process has allowed fire fighters to address 

dangerous health hazards and obtain hearing protection equipment. In the twelve years that Omaha fire fighters have been able 

to collectively bargain, they have not lost a fire fighter.35 In Miami, 

Florida, the local fire fighter union was able to offer data that convinced city leaders to establish one of the nation’s foremost fire department-based emergency medical services (EMS) delivery models. 

The EMS system has reduced response times and reduced costs to 

taxpayers. According to Miami Fire Chief William Bryson, ‘‘the bottom line is collective bargaining worked to improve services in our 

city.’’ 36

Additionally, collective bargaining can help communities during 

difficult times. Wayne Seybold, Mayor of Marion, Indiana testified 

before the June 5, 2007 HELP Subcommittee and told the Subcommittee that at a critical moment in his community,37 ‘‘the City 

of Marion’s collective bargaining units were part of a team that 

were willing to make sacrifices for the betterment of the community.’’ 38 He further testified that the City’s relationship with the 

Marion Fire Department was anything but trusting in the beginning. However, since the City began collectively bargaining with 

the fire fighters, a sense of trust and respect has evolved, ‘‘by promoting such cooperation, our community enjoys a more effective 

and efficient delivery of emergency services.’’ 39

Protecting public safety employee collective bargaining laws 

After the bill’s enactment, the FLRA will have one-hundred and 

eighty days to review existing state laws to determine if individual 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
17 

40Department of Homeland Security, HSPD–8 Overview, available at: http:// 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/assessments/hspd8.htm (last visited June 25, 2007). 41Shortly after September 11, 2001, Congress created the new Department of Homeland Security (P.L. 107–296) and stipulated that the Department would be responsible with assisting 

states and localities with their homeland security efforts. The Office for Domestic Preparedness 

(ODP) awards equipment grants, administers training programs, and provides technical assistance. The office’s authority extends from at least four different statutes, most of which provide 

general authority to federal entities to assist states and localities with terrorism preparedness 

(P.L. 104–132, P.L. 104–201; P.L. 107–56; P.L. 107–296). Funding for the Assistance to Fire 

Continued 

states meet the minimal standards of collective bargaining. The 

only requirement is that they provide the rights and responsibilities comparable to or greater to each of the rights included within 

Section 4(b) of the Act. If the FLRA determines that states already 

provide these basic rights, they are exempt from any further oversight as long as they maintain their law. 

In states where the localities are given the authority to determine and regulate the collective bargaining rights of public safety 

officers, those localities which do so would be treated in the same 

manner as the states. Under the Act, the FLRA would give these 

local ordinances the same deference as state laws. Therefore, if a 

state as described above opts not to enact a statewide law, FLRA’s 

authority would be limited solely to those jurisdictions where public safety officers do not have minimum bargaining rights. 

In determining whether a State law ‘‘substantially provides’’ for 

the rights and responsibilities enumerated in Section 4(b)(3), the 

Committee recognizes that many effective state bargaining laws 

contain limited exemptions from issues subject to bargaining, and 

directs the authority to allow such flexibility as long as the exclusions do not undermine the purposes of this Act. Some examples 

of such special provisions that the Committee believes are consistent with the intent of the legislation include exemptions for bargaining over: merit examinations (Connecticut); job reclassifications 

(Hawaii); promotions (Michigan); work performance standards (Nevada); residency requirements (Illinois); and use of technology 

(Delaware), among others. 

Public safety employees serve an integral role in Homeland Security 

The federal government has a compelling interest in protecting 

the rights of public safety officers as part of protecting homeland 

security. The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act intends to help ensure the effective delivery of emergency services by 

establishing minimal standards for collective bargaining between 

public safety employees and their employers. 

The federal government utilizes local emergency response personnel to carry out federal disaster response activities, both at 

home and abroad and it retains the authority to send local government employees anywhere they are needed. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress and the President have 

given significant attention to the role of first responders in the nation’s homeland security efforts. President Bush issued the Homeland Security Presidential Directive–8 (HSPD–8) which declared it 

a federal responsibility to ‘‘strengthen preparedness capabilities of 

Federal, state, and local entities.’’ 40 Congress has enacted numerous laws to aid first responders, recognizing the essential role that 

they play in the federal government’s responsibility to protect 

homeland security.41 September 11th demonstrated that the fedVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:24 Jul 15, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
18 

fighters Program (P.L. 106–398) which awards grants directly to local fire departments for fire 

fighter safety programs, training, equipment and facility improvements was raised from $100 

million in FY 2001, to $900 million for FY 2003 and FY 2004 (P.L. 107–107) following the September 11th terrorist attacks. In addition, after September 11th Congress has passed legislation 

regarding technology, funding, spectrum access and other areas critical to first responders and 

emergency communications. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–296) addressed interoperable emergency communications capability; the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 458) expanded Congress’ requirements for action in improving interoperability and public safety communications; Congress set a deadline of February 18, 2009 for the 

release of radio frequency spectrum for public safety radios as part of the Deficit Reduction Act 

of 2005 (P.L. 109–171). The Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006 created an Office 

of Emergency Communications and the position of Director who is required to take numerous 

steps to coordinate emergency communications planning, preparedness, and response, particularly at the state and regional level (P.L. 109–296, Title VI, Sec. 671(b) ‘Title XVIII, ‘Sec. 1801 ‘(c) ‘(7). 42 Nunziato Testimony, at 3. 43Select Bipartisan to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, 

U.S. House of Representatives. Available at: http://katrina.house.gov/fulllkatrinalreport.htm 

(last accessed June 25, 2007). 44 NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937) (upholding the National Labor 

Relations Act, finding that by controlling industrial labor strife, Congress was preventing burdens from being placed on interstate commerce). 

eral government has a 13 vested interest in ensuring that public 

safety operations are properly staffed, trained and equipped. 

Officer Nunziato articulated the inherent role public safety employees play in homeland security. Prior to September 11th, the 

vast majority of the Port Authority police officers worked steady 

eight hour tours on a four day on, two day off schedule. By the end 

of the day on September 11th, every officer was switched to twelve 

hour tours, seven days a week. Vacation and personal leave were 

cancelled. The schedule did not return to normal for three years.42

September 11th demonstrated that homeland security is a vital 

federal government responsibility and first responders play an indispensable role in homeland security. 

September 11th prompted active federal government involvement 

in local emergency response preparedness. The need for the federal 

government to provide support to first responders was further evidenced by the devastating affects of Hurricane Katrina. The 2006 

congressional Failure of Initiative report found widespread lack of 

unity, poor coordination and cooperation, and delayed and duplicative efforts by responders immediately prior to and after landfall of 

the devastating storm.43 The lack of cohesion among state and local 

emergency response personnel impaired their ability to organize 

their response activities effectively. The Public Safety EmployerEmployee Cooperation Act will enhance cohesion among agencies 

across jurisdictions that will improve the delivery of critical services. 

Constitutional authority 

Requiring the states to provide collective bargaining rights to all 

public safety employees is a valid exercise of Congress’ authority to 

regulate commerce pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It is well established that Congress may regulate labor management relations for employment in, or affecting interstate commerce 44 and there is little question that public safety employees’

and their role in homeland security affects interstate commerce. 

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that Congress has considerable discretion to determine what activities affect interstate commerce, to the extent that it held events of purely local commerce 

(such as local working conditions) might, because of market forces, 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
19 

45 U.S. v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) (upholding the Fair Labor Standards Act as applied to 

a local employer); Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (upholding federal limits on farm production as applied to a local farmer who grew wheat for family consumption). 46William C. Thompson, Jr., Comptroller for the City of New York. Remarks Prepared for 

Speech Before the Association for a Better New York. (Sept. 4, 2002). Available at: http:// 

www.comptroller.nyc.gov/press/speeches/print/associationlforlbetterlny.shtm (last visited 

June 25, 2007). 47 Risk Management Solutions, ‘‘RMS Expects Economic Loss to Exceed $100 Billion from 

Hurricane Katrina and the Great New Orleans Flood,’’ Sept. 2, 2005. Available at: http:// 

www.rms.com/NewsPress/PRl090205lHUKatrina.asp (last accessed June 25, 2007). 48 469 U.S. 528 (1985). 49 Ensuring Collective Bargaining Rights for First Responders: H.R. 980, The Public Safety 

Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007, hearing before the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor & Pensions, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. (2007) (written testimony of William Banks, 

at 2) [hereinafter Banks Testimony]. 

negatively affect interstate commerce, and thus could be regulated.45

The economic impact of terrorism and natural disasters is not 

limited to the locality where these events occur. Rather, such 

events have regional and national economic impacts for which the 

federal government must be responsive. In addition to the devastating loss of life of September 11th, the City of New York estimates that the economic costs from the attacks is somewhere between $83 billion and $95 billion. This estimate includes the onetime loss of wealth, which includes damage or destruction of the 

physical structures and loss of personal income, and also includes 

the loss of goods and services produced and sold.46 Furthermore, it 

is estimated that that the economic loss from Hurricane Katrina 

and subsequent flooding in New Orleans is expected to exceed $100 

billion.47 By improving the cohesiveness and effectiveness of public 

safety employers and their employees, H.R. 980 assists in stemming these costs. 

Congress’ authority to provide collective bargaining rights to public safety employees is an extension of the Court’s 1995 decision in 

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority.48 The Court 

in Garcia determined that Congress had the authority to extend 

wage and hour protections to state and local workers. If Congress 

determined that wage and hour protections should be extended to 

public sector workers, the Court reasoned that Representatives 

from those districts followed their constituents’ policy preferences. 

Additionally, ensuring individual liberty would be advanced by permitting Congress to extent wage and hour protections. Over the 

last twelve years, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act has garnered the support of no less fifty and as many as 

two-hundred and seventy-four co-sponsors. It is clear that not only 

a majority of the Congress, but the majority in this country support 

extending collective bargaining rights to public safety officers. 

In his testimony before the HELP Subcommittee’s June 5, 2007 

hearing, William Banks, Professor of Law at Syracuse University 

and director of its Institute for National Security and 

Counterterrorism, notes that the Court, in certain situations, has 

found that the Tenth Amendment limits Congress’ ability to extend 

commerce-based regulations to public employees and employers.49

However, this limitation applies when Congress attempts to ‘‘commandeer’’ state or local regulatory process, by requiring states and/ 

or cities to adopt and implement a federal regulatory program. 

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act does not 

‘‘commandeer’’ state or local governments by requiring that they 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
20 

50 An individual has the right to petition in the circuit in which the person resides or transacts 

business or in D.C. circuit for judicial review. 

enact or implement a federal regulatory program. The Act expressly places the onus on states that do not yet provide full collective bargaining rights for public sector employees to either provide 

the protections required in the Act, or to allow the FLRA to implement the Act. 

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act is about 

fairness and national security. It will protect both our first responders and the communities they serve, making the nation safer 

and more secure. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Provides that the short title of H.R. 980 is the ‘‘Public 

Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007.’’

Section 2. Articulates that the intent of the Act is to promote 

labor-management relationships and partnerships between public 

safety employers and public safety employees. A public safety employer/employee relationship based on trust, mutual respect, open 

communication, bilateral consensual problem solving and shared 

accountability plays an essential role in the efforts of the U.S. to 

detect, prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks, and to respond to 

natural disasters, hazardous materials, and other mass casualty incidents. The absence of adequate cooperation between public safety 

employers and public safety employees has implications not only 

for national security, but for the security of public safety employees, and for their health and well-being. 

Section 4(a)(1). Provides the timeline by which the Federal Labor 

Relations Authority (‘‘Authority’’) shall review State collective bargaining laws to see if they meet minimum standards with respect 

to the bargaining rights for public safety officers. The Authority 

shall, no later than one-hundred and eighty days after the enactment make the determination as to whether a state substantially 

provides rights and responsibilities comparable or greater than 

those as defined in Section 4(b). 

In addition, pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) the Authority can make 

a subsequent determination as to whether a state substantially 

complies with the Act if there is a subsequent change in state law 

or its interpretation. This request can be made in writing by an 

employer or labor organization. The Authority shall issue its determination within thirty days. Sec. 4(a)(2)(B). Any person aggrieved 

by the Authority’s determination has sixty days following that determination to petition any U.S. Court of Appeals.50

Section 4(b). Defines the adequate rights and responsibilities a 

state must provide in order to substantially comply with the Act. 

The Authority shall consider a state’s law to provide adequate 

rights and responsibility unless the state’s law fails to substantially 

provide each of the following five minimum standards: (1) Granting 

public safety officers to right to form and join a labor organization 

and have it recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative 

of such employees; (2) Requiring public safety employer to recognize the employees’ labor organization, to agree to bargain with the 

labor organization, and to commit any agreements to writing in a 

contract or memorandum of understanding; (3) Providing for barVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:24 Jul 15, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
21 

gaining over hours, wages, and terms and condition of employment; 

(4) Making an impasse resolution available if the parties are unable to reach an agreement, such as fact-finding, medication, arbitration, or comparable procedures; (5) Requiring enforcement 

through (A) state courts of all rights, and protections enumerated 

in this subsection; (B) any written contract or memorandum of understanding. 

Nothing in Section 4(b) dictates to states the process for employees to choose to join a union. The Act only requires that the labor 

organization be ‘‘freely chosen by a majority of the employees.’’ Employees may choose to join a union through a majority sign up process, a secret ballot election or any other process that reflects the 

free choice of employees. The Act does not require states or localities to adopt any specific means to discern that majority choice, so 

long as that free choice is protected. 

Section 4(b) was amended from earlier versions of the Act to reduce the list of standards a state must comply with when determining whether or not a state substantially provides rights and responsibilities comparable to or greater than those provided through 

Section 4(b) of the Act. Reducing the number of minimum requirements intends to give states greater flexibility in implementing collective bargaining laws. 

Section 5. Defines the role of the Authority in evaluating state 

collective bargaining laws, and in enforcing the Act in those states 

that do not meet minimum standards. The Authority, no later than 

1 year after enactment, shall issue regulations establishing procedures providing the rights and responsibilities defined in 4(b) for 

those States that the Authority determines do not substantially 

provide for such rights and responsibilities for public safety employers and officers. 

Section 5(b). In accordance with this Act and the regulations prescribed by the Authority, the Authority shall: (1) Determine the appropriateness of units for labor organization representation; (2) Supervise or conduct elections to determine if a labor organization 

has been selected as the exclusive bargaining representative by a 

majority of the employees in an appropriate unit; (3) Resolve issues 

relating to the duty to bargain in good faith; (4) Conduct hearings 

and resolve complaints of unfair labor practices; (5) Resolve exemptions to the awards of arbitrators; (6) Protect the rights of each employee to join, or assist any labor organization; (7) Take any actions 

necessary and appropriate to administer this Act. 

Section 5(c)(1). Provides that the Authority has the right to petition to enforce the Act. The Authority may petition any U.S. Court 

of Appeals with jurisdiction over the parties to enforce any final orders and for temporary relief or a restraining order. Any interested 

party has the right to file suit against a municipality or local government in Federal court to enforce compliance with the regulations issued by the Authority. 

Section 5(c)(2). Provides that any interested party has the right 

to file suit against any political subdivision of a state, or if the 

state has waived its sovereign immunity, against the state itself, 

in any U.S. district court. If the Authority subsequently brings suit 

to enforce compliance with any order issued by the Authority, the 

individual’s petition shall terminate upon filing by the Authority. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
22 

Section 6. Provides that notwithstanding any right or responsibilities provided under State law, public safety employers, public safety employees and any labor organization representing those public 

safety employees are prohibited from engaging in strikes or 

lockouts. 

Section 7. Provides that H.R. 980 does not invalidate a certification, recognition, collective bargaining agreement or memorandum of understanding which has been issued, approved or ratified by any public safety employee relations board or commission 

or by any State or political subdivisions or its agents. 

Section 8(a). Limits the extent to which the Act can impose 

standards onto the states that relate to collective bargaining. Nothing in the Act shall: (1) Preempt or limit the remedies, rights and 

procedures of any State law or political subdivision that substantially provide greater or comparable rights and responsibilities described in Sec. 4(b). (2) Prevent a State from enforcing a Right-toWork law that prohibits employers and labor organizations from 

negotiating provisions in labor agreements that require union 

membership or payment of union fees as a condition of employment; (3) Preempt any State law in effect on the date of enactment 

of the Act that substantially provides for the rights and responsibilities in Section 4(b) because the State law permits an employee to 

appear on his own with the public safety agency involved, excludes 

employees of a state militia or National Guard from its coverage, 

provides that a contract or memorandum of understanding between 

a public safety employer or labor organization must be presented 

to the State legislature as part of the approval process. 

Section 8(a) further provides that nothing in the Act prohibits an 

employee from engaging in part-time employment or volunteer activities during off-duty hours; to 18 require a State to rescind or 

preempt the laws or ordinances of a State’s political subdivision if 

it substantially provides the rights and responsibilities comparable 

or greater than those outlined in section 4(b) of this Act, or preempt any State law that substantially provides for the rights and 

responsibilities described in section 4(b) solely because the law does 

not require bargaining with respect to pension and retirement benefits. 

Section 8(b). Provides for a partial exemption from the requirements under this Act, or a State may exempt from its State law, 

a political subdivision of the State with a population of less than 

5,000 or that employs fewer than 25 full-time employees. The 25 

employee exemption includes all full-time employees of the political 

subdivision, not limited to public safety employees. Employees 

elected by popular vote or appointed to serve on a board or commission are excluded. 

Section 8(c). Provides the Authority with the exclusive power to 

enforce the provisions of this Act with respect to public safety officers employed by a State, notwithstanding any other provisions of 

this Act, and in the absence of a waiver of a State’s sovereign immunity. 

Section 8(a) was revised from earlier versions of the Act to expressly provide that H.R. 980 neither limits a state’s ability to be 

‘‘right to work,’’ nor prohibits an individual from serving as a volunteer fire fighter. In addition, Section 8(b) was revised from earlier versions to address concerns raised by smaller jurisdictions 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
23 

about the Act’s implementation. It is the intent of the Act that 

communities with a population of less than 5,000 or that employs 

less than 25 full-time employees be exempt from H.R. 980. 

Section 9. Provides that the authorization of funds shall be appropriated as may be necessary to carry out the Act. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute is explained in the 

body of this report. Representative Souder introduced an amendment which would have required the states to conduct representational elections exclusively through secret ballot procedures. The 

amendment was withdrawn and no further action was taken on the 

amendment. 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1, the Congressional Accountability Act, requires a description of the application of this bill 

to the legislative branch. The Committee believes that H.R. 980 

will have no significant impact on the legislative branch. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

The Committee has determined that H.R. 980 will have minimal 

impact on the regulatory burden. 

(See CBO letter for further analysis) 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement of whether the 

provisions of the reported bill include unfunded mandates. 

(The CBO letter will address this issue) 

EARMARK STATEMENT

H.R. 980 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e) 

or 9(f) of rule XXI. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
24 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here HR232.001
25 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 2(b)(1) 

of rule X of the rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

body of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CBO COST ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements of 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives and section 402 

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following estimate for H.R. 980 from the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office: 

JUNE 27, 2007. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 980, the Public Safety 

Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Matthew Pickford (for 

federal costs), who can be reached at 226–2860, Elizabeth Cove (for 

the state and local impact), who can be reached at 225–3220, and 

Paige Shevlin (for the private-sector impact), who can be reached 

at 226–2940. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 980—Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 

2007 

Summary: H.R. 980 would establish federal standards regarding 

the collective bargaining and conflict resolution measures available 

to public safety personnel employed by state and local governments, the District of Columbia, and any U. S. territory or possession that employs such personnel. CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 980 would cost $44 million over the 2008–2012 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary funds. Enacting the 

bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 980 contains several intergovernmental and private-sector 

mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA). Because of uncertainties about how employees would exercise the collective bargaining rights that would be authorized by 

the bill and, consequently, how state and local employers would be 

affected, CBO cannot estimate whether the costs of the intergovernmental mandates would exceed the threshold established in the 

act ($66 million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation). CBO estimates that the direct costs of the private-sector mandates would be 

well below the annual threshold specified in UMRA ($131 million 

in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation). 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
26 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 980 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 800 (general government). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Federal Labor Relations Authority Spending Under Current Law: 

Estimated Authorization Level a ...................................................... 25 26 27 28 29 30 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... 25 26 27 28 29 30 

Proposed Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level ......................................................... 0 3 10 10 11 11 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... 0 3 9 10 11 11 

Federal Labor Relations Authority Spending Under H.R. 980: 

Estimated Authorization Level ......................................................... 25 29 37 38 40 41 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................... 25 29 36 38 40 41 

a The 2007 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The 2008–2012 levels are CI30’s baseline projections, assuming annual adjustments for anticipated inflation. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2008, that the 

necessary amounts will be appropriated for each fiscal year, and 

that outlays will follow historical trends for similar activities. 

H.R. 980 would extend collective bargaining rights to public safety personnel under certain conditions and would provide for federal 

administration of those rights in states that do not comply with the 

minimum standards in the bill. It would authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary for the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to adopt regulations implementing the bill, 

determine state compliance with the standards, and administer 

and enforce the standards where necessary. The bill would allow 

for judicial review of the FLRA’s determinations and judicial enforcement of the new standards. 

CBO estimates that the FLRA would spend an additional $3 million in 2008, subject to the availability of appropriated funds, to develop the regulations, determine state compliance with the standards, and respond to any judicial review of its determinations. Preliminary information from the FLRA suggests that about half of 

the existing state programs would not be in substantial compliance 

with the bill’s standards. If the final determinations confirm that 

analysis, about 500,000 public safety officers would come under the 

FLRA’s jurisdiction, which would increase the agency’s workload by 

about 40 percent, beginning in 2009. CBO estimates that a workload increase of that magnitude would cost $10 million a year. 

Costs could be lower if states modify their laws and practices to 

comply with the standards in the legislation, but CBO has no basis 

for predicting whether states would make such changes. 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: H.R. 

980 would preempt state authority to regulate the collective bargaining rights of its state and local public safety employees. The 

bill would require the FLRA to develop and implement regulations 

that grant certain public safety employees the right to collectively 

bargain in states where that authority does not meet a minimum 

level of coverage as determined by the FLRA. Such a preemption 

of state authority is a mandate under UMRA. Costs to states, if 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
27 

any, from this mandate would be minimal because the FLRA also 

would be required to enforce the regulations. 

As employers, certain state and local governments would be required to meet and bargain with the employees’ exclusive representative should the employees choose to be represented by a collective bargaining unit. Such a requirement would be a mandate 

because those employers, under current law, are not required to 

meet and bargain with employees. The costs of complying with the 

mandate would include administrative activities that support the 

collective bargaining process and would vary by state depending on 

the level of collective bargaining rights currently extended to public 

safety employees in each state. Because we cannot predict how employees would respond to this new authority—that is, whether they 

would choose to organize a collective bargaining unit and what employment conditions they might ultimately negotiate—CBO cannot 

estimate the administrative costs that would result from this mandate. 

Section 5 would require state or local governments, if subpoenaed, to provide testimony and documentary evidence to the FLRA 

as it enforces the collective bargaining system. Such a requirement 

would be a mandate as defined by UMRA. CBO cannot predict the 

degree to which this subpoena power would be exercised, but the 

cost of complying with the mandate is not likely to be significant. 

Section 6 would prohibit public-sector employers from engaging 

in lockouts or any other actions designed to compel a public safety 

officer or labor union to agree to terms of a proposed contract. This 

prohibition would not impose costs on any state or local government because it would maintain regular staffing levels during instances of disagreement between labor and management. 

Section 8 would prohibit states from preempting any local laws 

or ordinances that provide collective bargaining rights that are 

equal to or greater than the rights provided in the bill. This preemption, also a mandate under UMRA, would not impose any costs 

on state governments. 

Because of the uncertainties about how the FLRA regulations 

would be implemented and how many public-sector employees 

would exercise their new rights to enter into collective bargaining 

agreements, CBO cannot determine whether the aggregate costs of 

the mandates contained in the bill would exceed the annual thresholds established by UMRA ($66 million in 2007, adjusted annually 

for inflation). 

Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 980 contains two 

private-sector mandates as defined by UMRA. Section 5 would require public safety officers or other private-sector entities, if subpoenaed, to provide testimony and evidence related to matters the 

FLRA would be empowered to investigate. Such a requirement 

would be a private-sector mandate as defined by UMRA. Although 

the precise number of individuals likely to be subpoenaed under 

this provision is uncertain, CBO expects that the direct cost of the 

mandate to private-sector entities would be well below the annual 

threshold established by UMRA ($131 million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Section 6 would prohibit labor organizations from engaging in 

strikes. Although this mandate could ultimately affect the strength 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
28 

of a public safety union’s bargaining power, CBO estimates that 

the mandate would impose no direct cost on private-sector entities. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Matthew Pickford; Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove; Impact 

on the Private Sector: Paige Shevlin. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with Clause 3(c) of House rule XIII, the goal of 

H.R. 980 is to provide basic labor protections to public safety officers. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Under clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee must include a statement citing 

the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to 

enact the law proposed by H.R. 980. The Committee believes that 

the 20 amendments made by this bill which extend collective bargaining rights to public safety employees are within Congress’ authority under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the costs 

that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 980. However, clause 

3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not 

apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

This legislation does not change existing law, it creates new law. 

COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE

None. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
(29) 

1See generally Section 7 of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. § 157). 2See 29 U.S.C. § 152(2) (excluding, inter alia, states and political subdivisions from definition 

of ‘‘employer’’). 

MINORITY VIEWS 

INTRODUCTION

Committee Republicans do not view the debate over H.R. 980, 

the ‘‘Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007,’’ as 

a question of whether firefighters, police officers, emergency medical services employees, and other public safety workers and first 

responders should be permitted to organize. Rather, the question 

was—and always had been—whether the federal government 

should dictate to state, local, and municipal governments not only 

an obligation to permit organization and to require bargaining, but 

indeed, to set the minimum standards that such bargaining must 

entail. We recognize and agree that persons can, in good conscience, differ in their views as to the correct answer(s) to these 

questions. 

We supported this bill during its consideration in the Committee 

on Education and Labor recognizing these facts, and with the express concerns we set forth and detail herein. As this bill continues 

to work its way through the legislative process, we are hopeful that 

efforts can be made to address the core concerns of federalism and 

states’ rights raised by H.R. 980. 

BACKGROUND

The National Labor Relations Act (‘‘NLRA’’ or the ‘‘Act’’) generally affords a range of rights and protections to covered workers. 

Such workers are afforded, for example, the right to engage (or not 

engage) in collective activity; to vote in an election on the question 

of whether to join a union; to collectively bargain over the terms 

and conditions of their employment; and, subject to contractual and 

other restrictions, whether to engage in a work stoppage or strike.1

In deference to states’ rights, and recognizing the unique needs 

of states and localities, employees of state and local governments 

have been expressly excluded from coverage under the NLRA since 

its enactment in 1939.2 As such, the labor rights and protections 

of state and local employees are governed by various state and local 

laws. States vary in their application of labor laws to various public 

employees. Some states have adopted a comprehensive set of labor 

law protections for all public employees; others have adopted more 

limited codes of law, or laws applicable to specific sorts of publicemployees; still other states prohibit collective bargaining for public-sector employees entirely. 

Supporters of current law argue that the delegation of public-employee labor relations to states not only reflects long-standing and 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
30 

3The FLRA is the federal agency tasked under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 with administering labor laws applicable to non-postal federal employees. 

well-settled federal law, but is also a proper recognition of states’ rights and local needs and interests. Supporters of an expanded 

federal role in state labor relations—such as that contemplated 

under H.R. 980—argue in response that the federal government 

should set minimum labor standards for employees, particularly 

those who may be called upon in situations in which there is a 

strong federal interest (such as, for example, a terrorist attack or 

hazardous waste contamination on federal property). There is no 

debate that H.R. 980 would provide for such an expanded federal 

role. 

H.R. 980, THE ‘‘PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION

ACT OF 2007’’

On February 12, 2007, Representative Dale Kildee (D–MI), joined 

by Representative John J. Duncan, Jr. (R–TN), introduced H.R. 

980, the ‘Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 

2007.’ ’’

H.R. 980 would provide federal labor law standards for a range 

of public safety employees. H.R. 980 sets forth a list of federal labor 

law standards, and directs the Federal Labor Relations Authority 

(‘‘FLRA’’ or the ‘‘Authority’’) 3 to review the labor laws of each of 

the fifty states. If the FLRA determines that a state’s laws do not 

contain provisions ‘‘substantially similar’’ to the core labor provisions set forth in H.R. 980, a state is faced with two choices: (1) 

enact within a specified time period laws that conform to the federal standard; or (2) have federal labor law, administered by the 

FLRA, govern the rights of state and local firefighters and public 

safety officers. 

More specifically, H.R. 980 provides that with respect to firefighters and public safety officers (defined to include law enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency medical services personnel), the FLRA must, within 180 days of enactment, review the 

laws of each of the fifty states and make a determination as to 

whether each state’s laws ‘‘substantially provide’’ the core labor 

rights described in the bill. To meet the federal standards set forth 

under H.R. 980, a state’s labor law must ‘‘substantially provide’’

specified public-sector employees with rights ‘‘comparable to or 

greater than’’ the following: 

• The right to form and join a union, and to have such union recognized as a collective bargaining representative of these employees; 

• A requirement that public employers recognize and bargain 

with such union, and commit any agreement to a written contract 

or memorandum of understanding; 

• The right to bargain specifically over hours, wages, and terms 

and conditions of employment; 

• The right to a third-party impasse resolution mechanism, 

which may include mediation or binding arbitration; and 

• The right to enforce these rights and any rights granted under 

a collective bargaining agreement by way of the state’s court system. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
31 

4Put more simply, states which are initially determined to not meet the federal standard are 

given the time from that first determination to the effective date of the federal regulations eighteen months later to enact or amend their state laws so as to bring them into compliance. 5 H.R. 980’s supporters’ analyses indicate that the following states would be required to adopt 

some change to their state or local labor laws to meet the bill’s requirements: Alabama, Arizona, 

Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. As noted above, however, it is not at all clear that the effects of H.R. 980 

are limited to these states; indeed, at the outset, every state is subject to an initial review and 

determination of compliance by federal authorities. 6For example, H.8. 980 provides a ‘‘small employer’’ exemption for localities that employ less 

than 25 people; small employer exemptions in various state laws may vary up or down from 

that figure. It is unclear in this example what variance the FLRA would find reflects ‘‘substantial’’ compliance with HR. 980’s federal requirements, or whether small deviations from the federal standard would be sufficient to result in federal preemption. 7See Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, Hearing on H.R. 1093, the ‘‘Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 1999,’’

Serial No. 106–106 (May 9, 2000) (available online at http://webharvest.gov/congress109th/ 

20061114005627/commdocs.house.gov/committees/edu/hedcew6-106.000/hedcew6-106.htm). Testimony and statements from the hearing are also available online at http://webharvest.gov/ 

congress109th/20061114062813/edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/106th/eer/pubsafety5900/ 

w15900.htm. 

Within one year of the bill’s date of enactment, the FLRA is required to promulgate federal regulations that provide the rights set 

forth above to public-sector firefighters and public safety personnel. 

If the Authority has determined that a state’s laws do not meet 

these requirements, the federal regulations will become binding on 

that state one year later.4

H.R. 980’s proponents estimate that 29 of 50 states currently 

have laws in place that would meet the federal standard; the 21 

remaining states would be required to enact new state labor legislation, or face the prospect of regulation by the federal governments.5 These analyses are by no means determinative, however: 

At the outset, every state’s law would be subject to scrutiny and 

a determination by the FLRA as to whether it meets federal minimum standards. It is unclear how significantly a state law may be 

allowed to vary from federal ‘‘standards’’ before being subject to 

federal preemption.6

On June 5, 2007, the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 

Labor, and Pensions held a legislative hearing entitled ‘‘Ensuring 

Collective Bargaining Rights for First Responders: H.R. 980, the 

‘Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007.’ ’’ Previously, the Subcommittee had considered this issue in 2000, when 

the Committee on Education and the Workforce’s Subcommittee on 

Employer-Employee Relations (as the Committee on Education and 

Labor’s Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions was then known) held a legislative hearing on a prior 

iteration of H.R. 980.7

REPUBLICAN VIEWS

Historically, a number of concerns have been raised with this legislation, or similar attempts to mandate federal labor law standards onto state or local employees. These concerns relate primarily 

to question of states’ rights, federal mandates, and the practical 

consequences of the bill, as well as the constitutionality of efforts 

by the federal government to regulate a state’s labor relations with 

its public employees. These concerns were expressed in testimony 

at the Subcommittee’s hearing, and are set forth below. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
32 

8See Testimony of Neil E. Reichenberg, Esq., Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, 

and Pensions Hearing ‘‘Ensuring Collective Bargaining Rights for First Responders: H.R. 980, 

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007’’ (June 5, 2007), available at: 

http://edlabor.house.gov/testimony/060507NeilReichenbergTestimony.pdf (hereinafter, ‘‘Reichenberg Testimony’’), at 2. 

States’ rights and Federal mandates 

As a matter of federalism, H.R. 980 directly raises concern with 

states’ rights, and the ability of state and local governments to establish a code of labor law that addresses local concerns, needs, 

and interests. Although H.R. 980’s supporters argue that administration of state labor laws will be left to the states, as a practical 

matter, H.R. 980 represents a federalization of state labor law by 

the importation of specific ‘‘minimum’’ requirements under state 

law. More to the point, H.R. 980 would explicitly apply federal law 

to those states which do not adopt laws that meet these federal 

standards. Thus whether through direct regulation or the indirect 

establishment of mandatory standards, H.R. 980 interjects the federal government directly into the labor relations of states and their 

public employees. Equally important, as a practical matter, H.R. 

980 would require states that do not currently bargain with publicsector safety employees to now do so, and could potentially expand 

the scope of such bargaining in states that do. 

These concerns were summarized in testimony by Neil E. 

Reichenberg, Esq., CAE, the Executive Director of the International Public Management Association for Human Resources 

(IPMA–HR), who testified on behalf of that organization and the 

International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA).8 As Mr. 

Reichenberg testified: 

IPMA–HR and IMLA recognize the important role that 

public safety employees have in providing vital services to 

citizens on a routine basis as well as their role as first responders in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster. We are not opposed to collective bargaining at the 

state and local government level but firmly believe that 

state and local governments are in the best position to determine the nature and extent of collective bargaining 

rights. We do not believe a federal ‘‘one size fits all’’ solution will improve the working conditions or the services 

provided by firefighters, police and emergency medical personnel, all of which are conducted in accordance with 

unique local conditions, governmental structures and revenue systems. 

At the Subcommittee’s hearing, R. Theodore Clark, testifying on 

behalf of the National Public Employer Labor Relations Association, testified that even one supportive of the right to collective bargaining for public safety employees—or agnostic on the point—may 

be concerned with H.R. 980: 

The needs of state and local government in the area of 

employer-employee relations, however, can best be determined on a state and local basis rather than by resort to 

federal legislation . . . . 

Lest there be any mistake about my position, let me emphatically state that I wholeheartedly support collective 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
33 

9Testimony of R. Theodore Clark, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions 

Hearing ‘‘Ensuring Collective Bargaining Rights for First Responders: H.R. 980, The Public 

Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007’’ (June 5, 2007), available at: http:// 

edlabor.house.gov/testimony/060507RTheodoreClarkTestimony.pdf (hereinafter, ‘‘Clark Testimony’’), at 1–2 (emphasis added). 10See U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, clause 3. 11See id., Amendments X, XI. 

bargaining in the public sector where a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit have opted to be 

represented for the purposes of collective bargaining . . . 

[M]y opposition to federal collective bargaining legislation such as H.R. 980 is not because I oppose public sector 

collective bargaining, but rather because of my firm belief 

that the enactment of a federal collective bargaining law 

would severely limit the demonstrated innovative and creative abilities of the states and local jurisdictions to deal 

in a responsible manner with the many complex issues 

that public sector collective bargaining poses.9

Committee Republicans recognize and share the concerns expressed by these witnesses that irrespective of one’s views as to the 

merit or propriety of collective bargaining by safety employees in 

the public sector, H.R. 980 represents an unprecedented federalization of what has traditionally been an area of law expressly reserved to states and localities. 

Constitutional issues 

Reflecting to some extent H.R. 980’s insertion of the federal government in an area traditionally regulated by states, some have argued that H.R. 980 may not pass muster under the Constitution. 

More specifically, it is unclear whether H.R. 980 would be held to 

be a valid exercise of Congress’s authority to adopt laws affecting 

interstate commerce by virtue of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. 

Constitution.10 Similarly, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves to states those powers not expressly delegated to the 

federal government under the Constitution, while the Eleventh 

Amendment generally provides states with sovereign immunity 

from suit under federal law.11

At the Subcommittee’s hearing on June 6, 2007, R. Theodore 

Clark testified that in his view, H.R. 980 would likely be held by 

the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. As Mr. Clark explained: 

Finally, there is a substantial question concerning 

whether H.R. 980 passes constitutional muster. In my 

judgment, it does not. H.R. 980 defines the terms ‘‘employer’’ and ‘‘public safety employer’’ to ‘‘mean any State, 

political subdivision of a State, the District of Columbia, or 

any territory or possession of the United States that employs public safety officers.’’ From the text of H.R. 980, it 

is clear that the purported constitutional basis for enacting 

H.R. 980 is the Commerce Clause. However, the Supreme 

Court in a series of decisions starting with the Seminole 

Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114 

(1996), has unequivocally held that Congress does not have 

the authority to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of states under the Commerce Clause. There is absoVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:24 Jul 15, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
34 

12 Clark Testimony at 15–16. 13 Reichenberg Testimony at 10–11. 

lutely no doubt in my mind that the Supreme Court today 

would hold that Congress does not have the constitutional 

authority under the Commerce Clause to enact H.R. 980 

vis-a ́-vis states and thereby abrogate their Eleventh 

Amendment immunity. 

Moreover, even if H.R. 980 were amended to specifically 

provide that Congress was unequivocally abrogating the 

Eleventh Amendment immunity of states pursuant to the 

Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is 

nevertheless quite clear that the Supreme Court would 

hold that Congress would not be acting pursuant to a valid 

grant of constitutional authority.12

Mr. Reichenberg also expressed the view of the organizations he 

represented that the constitutionality of H.R. 980 is questionable 

at best: 

The Supreme Court has in recent years limited the authority of Congress to pass laws abrogating states’ immunity from lawsuits. In the case Seminole Tribe of Florida 

v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), the Court ruled that the 

Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to 

abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit. 

Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have found states 

immune from suit under employment-related laws such as 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), in Alden v. Maine, 

527 U.S. 706 (1999), and the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA) in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama et al. v. Garrett et al., 531 U.S. 356, 369 (2001). 

Other Supreme Court opinions call into question the authority of Congress to pass laws affecting state and local 

activity. In U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Court 

found Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause in passing the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 

1990, and in the case Flores v. City of Boerne, 521 U.S. 

507 (1997), the Court found that Congress exceeded its 

power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment in 

passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). 

Congress’s authority to enact H.R. 980 is highly questionable.13

Committee Republicans recognize and share the concern that 

H.R. 980, as drafted, raises serious constitutional questions. At a 

minimum it limns Congressional authority to legislate within the 

confines of the Commerce Clause, and, as noted, in the views of 

many, exceeds that authority. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 980 

H.R. 980 was considered by the full Committee on Wednesday, 

June 20, 2007. An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute was 

offered by Representative Kildee and adopted by voice vote. A second amendment was offered by Representative Souder and withdrawn by unanimous consent. While the Kildee Amendment incorVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:24 Jul 15, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
35 

porated a number of changes and improvements in the underlying 

text, Committee Republicans remain concerned that core issues of 

federalism and states’ rights remain in this bill, and urge that 

these issues are addressed as this bill is readied for the House 

Floor, and in any legislative action beyond. 

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 

The Committee adopted by voice vote an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Representative Kildee, the bill’s 

sponsor. The Kildee Amendment incorporates a number of important changes to the text of H.R. 980 as introduced, several of which 

were highlighted at the Subcommittee’s June 5, 2007 hearing. 

Committee Republicans are pleased that both sides of the aisle 

were able to work in a cooperative fashion in crafting these 

changes. The deliberative process through which the Committee 

has addressed H.R. 980, including a legislative hearing devoted to 

its specific provisions, underscores the value of and need for regular order and deliberate consideration of significant legislation before the Committee. 

Specifically, the Substitute does the following: 

Levels the Playing Field for All Parties. Concern was raised at 

the hearing that in making a determination as to whether a state’s 

law passed federal muster and ‘‘substantially provided’’ the federal 

minimum standards set forth in the bill, the views of just one affected party—unions representing employees—were to be given 

undue weight by the FLRA. The Substitute addresses this issue 

and levels the playing field by providing that the views of all affected parties—employers and unions representing employees—will 

be afforded equal importance, and given weight by the FLRA in 

making its determination where the parties agree that state law 

substantially provides the minimum standards set forth in the bill. 

Presumes State Law Complies with Federal Standards. Supporters of H.R. 980 have steadfastly maintained that it is the intent of the legislation to displace as little state law as possible, and 

that where a question of whether a state’s labor law ‘‘substantially 

complies’’ with the federal standard is close, the default presumption should be that it does. To make this expressed intention explicit, section 4(b) of the Substitute provides that a state’s labor 

laws are presumed to be in compliance with federal standards unless the FLRA affirmatively finds to the contrary. 

Ensures State Law is Not Preempted Solely Because It Excludes 

Pension and Retirement Benefits from the Scope of Bargaining. At 

the hearing, the Subcommittee heard extensive testimony expressing concern that the bill might unintentionally preempt a range of 

states’ laws simply because those laws exclude from the scope of 

bargaining the issue of pension and retirement benefits. As R. 

Theodore Clark explained: 

Perhaps the best examples of the impact of H.R. 980 on 

existing state laws is the likely interpretation of the term 

‘‘hours, wages, and terms and conditions of employment,’’ i.e., the scope of mandatory bargaining specified in Section 

4(b)(3). Take the issue of pensions. Normally, the pensions 

are considered a form of compensation and thus fall within 

the mandatory scope of bargaining. Because of the enorVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:24 Jul 15, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
36 

14 Clark Testimony at 4–5. 15Majority Views, ante, at ll. 

mous costs that have ensued as a result of negotiations 

over public sector pensions, a number of states have specifically excluded pensions from the scope of bargaining. 

For example, the New York Taylor Law specifically provides that the scope of negotiations ‘‘shall not include any 

benefits provided by or to be provided by a public retirement system, or payments to a fund or insurer to provide 

an income for retirees, or payment to retirees or their 

beneficiaries’’ and that ‘‘[n]o such retirement benefits shall 

be negotiated pursuant to this Article, and any benefits so 

negotiated shall be void.’’ It was the near bankruptcy of 

New York City and several other New York cities in the 

late 1970’s, brought on in part by overly generous negotiated increases in pension benefits, that prompted the 

New York legislature to adopt this ban on negotiations 

over pensions. Under H.R. 980, however, the federal law 

would presumably preempt inconsistent state law.14

To address this concern, the Substitute expressly provides in section 8(a)(6) that the bill shall not be construed to preempt ‘‘any 

State law that substantially provides for the rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b) solely because such law does not require bargaining with respect to pension and retirement benefits’’

(emphasis added). We reaffirm that H.R. 980 is not intended to 

preempt such laws. 

With respect to the general scope of the phrase ‘‘terms and conditions of employment,’’ we note that, consistent with the purpose of 

this bill, it is the intent of Committee Republicans that the FLRA 

interpret that term holistically, and not give undue focus to the exclusion of discrete or limited items from the required scope of bargaining under existing state law. In that light, we note our concurrence with the Majority that: 

In determining whether a State law ‘‘substantially provides’’ for the rights and responsibilities enumerated in 

Section 4(b)(3), the Committee urges the Authority to 

avoid an overbroad, all-inclusive interpretation of ‘‘terms 

and conditions of employment.’’ The Committee recognizes 

that many effective state bargaining laws contain reasonable exemptions from issues subject to bargaining, and directs the authority to allow such flexibility as long as the 

exclusions do not undermine the purposes of this Act.15

Conforms the Definition of Supervisory Employee to that Contained in the Federal Labor Relations Act. The Substitute modifies 

the definition of ‘‘supervisory employee’’ in the bill to conform the 

definition to that of the Federal Labor Relations Act, and to delete 

a requirement that an employee spend the ‘‘majority’’ of his or her 

time on supervisory duties. The proportion of time that a supervisory employee must devote to supervisory duties to be considered 

a ‘‘supervisor’’ under the National Labor Relation Act is currently 

under significant scrutiny, and is the subject of debate and legislation presently before the Committee. Eliminating the ‘‘majority’’ reVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:24 Jul 15, 2007 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR232.XXX HR232

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
37 

quirement in favor of existing language under the Federal Labor 

Relations Act is intended to make clear the Committee’s view that 

this controversy should not be imported into this new legislation, 

and that the term ‘‘supervisory employee’’ shall be construed as it 

is currently under the Federal Labor Relations Act. 

On this point, the Substitute also makes clear that the applicable 

state law definition of ‘‘supervisory employee’’ and ‘‘management 

employee’’ shall apply, or in the absence of those exact terms, substantially equivalent ones. It is not the intent of the Committee 

that a federal definition of ‘‘supervisory employee’’ preempt a state 

definition of ‘‘supervisor’’ simply by virtue of semantics or word 

choices made by state legislators who could not know that federal 

law would later look to these distinctions. 

Provides a Mechanism for Enforcement of the Bill’s No-Strike 

Clause. In the past, critics have noted that although the legislation 

forbids a union or public safety employees from engaging in a 

strike (or a covered employer from locking out employees), those 

provisions had no effective enforcement mechanism. The Substitute 

addresses this point by including in section 5(c)(2) an express right 

for aggrieved parties to enforce by way of court the provisions contained in section 6 (prohibiting strikes or lockouts). 

Ensures States Are Afforded Adequate Time to Conform Their 

Laws If They So Choose. As drafted, H.R. 980 would have provided 

that in some instances where a state legislature meets infrequently, and that state’s laws were found to not ‘‘substantially comply’’ with the federal standards set forth in H.R. 980, the state 

would have had insufficient time to amend its laws if it so chose, 

and thus be subject to direct federal regulation. The Substitute directly addresses that concern, by providing that the federal regulations set forth in the bill shall not become effective until the later 

of: (a) two years after the date of the bill’s enactment; or (b) the 

date of the end of the first regular session of the legislature that 

begins after the date of enactment of the bill. In this way, every 

state can be certain that its legislature is given the opportunity to 

address the impact of H.R. 980 on the state level, rather than be 

subject to direct federal regulation. 

Provides for Meaningful Judicial Review of FLRA Determinations. Finally, the Substitute ensures that courts will be able to 

provide meaningful review to determinations made by the Federal 

Labor Relations Authority by deleting a presumption of law that, 

in the view of many, tipped the scale too far in the Authority’s 

favor. Specifically, the Substitute makes clear that only findings of 

fact by the FLRA shall be entitled to deference in administrative 

review proceedings, but that findings of law shall receive de novo 

scrutiny by reviewing courts. 

Committee Republicans view the changes contained in the Substitute as improving the underlying text of H.R. 980, while recognizing that they do not address larger concerns with federalism 

and states’ rights that have been raised with respect to the bill. 

The Souder Amendment: Preserving the Right to a Secret 

Ballot 

As was made plain earlier this year, when the Committee considered H.R. 800, the deceptively-named ‘‘Employee Free Choice Act,’’


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
38 

Committee Republicans are united in their belief that the right to 

a private ballot is sacrosanct, and the cornerstone of our democracy. In the context of whether employees wish to form and join a 

union, the right to vote on that question—free of harassment, coercion, or intimidation—and the right to have one’s vote known only 

to oneself—not an employer, not a coworker, and not a union—has 

been among the most vital protections that federal labor law affords to workers. 

It was in that spirit that Representative Souder offered an 

amendment to ensure that public safety employees who would be 

given the opportunity to organize under this bill would always have 

the right to do so by way of secret ballot. The Souder Amendment 

did two things. First, it provided that the federal regulations promulgated by the FLRA under this bill would in no instance require 

recognition of a union by way of card check, thus preserving the 

right to a secret-ballot election where one is requested. Second, the 

Souder Amendment would have provided, on a prospective basis, 

that no state could impair the right to a secret ballot with respect 

to the organization of public safety employees as defined in this 

bill, or otherwise require that such recognition be granted on the 

basis of an inherently unreliable ‘‘card check.’’ The issues raised by the Souder Amendment touch on the fundamental tenets of our nation’s labor law, and continue to be debated 

in other pieces of legislation at this writing. Republicans are united 

in their commitment to the right to a secret-ballot election. Recognizing that the text of H.R. 980, as amended by the Substitute, 

does not expressly impair that right, the Souder Amendment was 

withdrawn. 

It goes without saying that should subsequent iterations of the 

bill threaten or impair the right of employees to a secret-ballot 

election, any such provision would be met with the strongest opposition by Committee Republicans. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
39 

CONCLUSION

As we noted at the outset, Committee Republicans do not view 

the debate over H.R. 980 as a question of whether firefighters, police officers, emergency medical services employees, and other public safety workers and first responders should be permitted to organize. Rather, the question was—and always had been—whether the 

federal government should dictate to state, local, and municipal 

governments not only an obligation to permit organization and to 

bargain, but indeed, the minimum standards that such bargaining 

must entail. We supported this bill in Committee recognizing these 

facts, and with the express concerns we noted above. As this bill 

continues to work its way through the legislative process, we urge 

that every effort be made to address the core concerns of federalism 

and states’ rights raised by H.R. 980. 

HOWARD P. BUCK MCKEON. PETER HOEKSTRA. MARK SOUDER. VERNON J. EHLERS. JUDY BIGGERT. JOE WILSON. JOHN KLINE. KENNY MARCHANT. LUIS FORTUN ̃ O. CHARLES BOUSTANY, Jr. 

VIRGINIA FOXX. ROB BISHOP. 

Æ 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING