(1) 

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2016 

THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:04 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Roy Blunt (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Blunt, Shelby, Alexander, Lankford, and Murray. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 

STATEMENT OF MARK GASTON PEARCE, CHAIRMAN 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROY BLUNT

Senator BLUNT. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, 

Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 

will come to order. 

We are certainly glad to have Mark Gaston Pearce, the chairman 

of the National Labor Relations Board, and Richard Griffin, the 

General Counsel of that Board, here today. Look forward to hearing your testimony and discussing issues and priorities at the National Labor Relations Board. 

This is the first oversight hearing of this committee the National 

Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 7 years. I am glad we have the 

opportunity to have this forum to review the budget and recent decisions that the Board has made. 

During the Obama Administration, the NLRB’s budget has increased by 8.9 percent, while its caseloads remain relatively flat. 

To put this in perspective, biomedical research funding has increased during that same period of time by 1.5 percent. 

For fiscal year 2016, the NLRB has requested another significant 

increase, including an increase of 30 full time employees. At the 

same time, the NLRB’s policy and regulatory agenda ignore current 

law as well as long-standing precedent in areas that I am sure we 

are going to talk about today. 

For example, the contemplated change to the joint employer 

standard would depart from the intent of the revised National 

Labor Relations Act and judicial precedent in NLRB vs. BrowningFerris. It would also depart from NLRB’s own past policy and case 
2 

precedent. The joint employer standard is not the only case that 

causes concern. The NLRB has initiated many changes that are 

having an adverse effect on jobs and consequently our economy. 

Congress recently voted to not approve the ambush elections rule 

that shortened the election timeframes to form a union, a timeframe that was typically only slightly more than a month from beginning to end. 

The details in the new rule make it clear that tying up employers 

in the process and significantly tipping the scale in favor of unions 

was the apparent objective. This rule requires that unprecedented 

levels of personal worker information be packaged and presented to 

organizers seeking to contact workers. 

Disclosure of such detailed additional personal information 

should not be required, especially without strong security safeguards and restrictions on how that data can be used. 

The NLRB’s decision on micro unions to allow sub-bargaining 

units to organize independently of the majority workers also 

counters decades of past policy and presents extraordinary new 

operational problems in the workplace. 

I am sure we want to talk about these issues. I am sure you have 

things you want to say. Before we go to our witnesses today, I 

would like to recognize Senator Murray. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I, too, 

want to thank our witnesses from the National Labor Relations 

Board for taking the time to be with us today. Chairman Pearce, 

Mr. Griffin, your work is absolutely critical, and I appreciate your 

service on the Board and your tireless efforts to defend the rights 

of workers and employers. 

I believe that real long term economic growth is built from the 

middle out, not from the top down, and our government has a role 

to play in investing in working families, making sure they have the 

opportunity to work hard and to succeed. 

Over the past few decades, working families have seen their incomes stagnate while the cost of living and healthcare and education has continued to go up. Too many families today are struggling to make ends meet on rock bottom wages and poor working 

conditions, and without collective bargaining rights, many workers 

have no recourse for improving their workplace. 

While the middle class share of America’s prosperity is at an all 

time low, the biggest corporations have posted massive profits. 

That is just not fair. I believe that our government and our economy and our workplaces should work for all of our families, not 

just the wealthiest few. 

In 1935, Congress understood the need to protect the rights of 

workers and employers, and to establish the right to collectively 

bargain. That is why we have the National Labor Relations Act. 

Congress also understood the need for an agency dedicated to resolving disputes and preventing unfair labor practices. That is why 

we have the National Labor Relations Board. 

Unfortunately recently, some of our Republican colleagues have 

taken every opportunity they can to lob attacks on the NLRB and 
3 

by extension, really attack workers who simply want a voice at the 

table in the workplace. 

I believe partisan attacks on the NLRB are unwarranted, and 

they are unproductive. When workers want to join a union, they 

are not looking for special treatment. They are simply trying to exercise a basic right. 

When the NLRB examines and adapts the National Labor Relations Act to changing patterns in the labor market or when it 

makes common sense updates to union election procedures, the 

Board is simply carrying out its duties under the law. 

I hope this hearing does not turn into another attempt to attack 

workers’ rights to organize or criticize the NLRB for carrying out 

its mission. I do welcome the opportunity today to hear from the 

NLRB about its budget request and the work the Board is doing 

to protect American workers and employers. 

I support this budget proposal to increase investments in the 

Board’s vital work. With ever changing employment relationships 

across the country, the Board adjudicates very complex litigation. 

This budget would help hire a small number of additional staff to 

continue its important work in investigating, in settling, and deciding its cases. 

This budget proposal will help the Board continue to resolve unfair labor practices in a timely manner, and it will help ensure employers and employees have access to a fair election process when 

workers want to vote on union representation. 

We as a Nation should not turn our backs on empowering workers through collective bargaining. That is the very thing that has 

helped so many of our workers climb into the middle class. It is no 

coincidence that when union membership was at its peak in the 

middle of the last century, America’s middle class grew strong. Collective bargaining gave workers the power to increase wages. 

In fact, from the end of World War II through the mid-1970s, 

wages rose along side the rise in American productivity. Unions 

helped workers get the training they needed to build their skills so 

they could advance on the job. 

They helped make sure men and women had safe workplaces. 

Union support was key to passing the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970, and since then, fatalities on the job have sharply declined, and workers have access to healthier working conditions. 

Through collective bargaining, access to healthcare rose, and that 

is still true today. Workers who are a part of a union are nearly 

30 percent more likely to be covered by employer provided health 

insurance. 

All of those benefits strengthen economic security for the middle 

class and for those who are working hard to get there, and more 

Americans are able to share in the economic prosperity they have 

earned through hard work. 

In Congress, we need to continue to expand economic security for 

more of our families. That should be our mission to move our country forward. As part of that effort, we have to make sure the NLRB 

can work efficiently and effectively, and we need to make sure that 

all families have the chance to share in the economic prosperity of 

this country, not just the wealthiest few. 
4 

Mr. Chairman, I do look forward to this hearing as a way to examine how the NLRB is moving forward toward those goals, and 

I truly hope we can work together on policies that create jobs and 

help our workers and families and create a very broad-based economic growth. 

Again, I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to the discussion. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Senator Murray. I think we would 

be pleased to have an opening statement both from Chairman 

Pearce and Counsel Griffin. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF MARK GASTON PEARCE

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you. Good morning. Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the subcommittee, I am 

pleased to appear before you today, and thank you for this invitation. 

I am privileged to serve as the chairman of the National Labor 

Relations Board, which will celebrate its 80th anniversary in July 

of this year. Since the inception in 1935, the National Labor Relations Board has been tasked with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act, the Act born out of the Great Depression has long been 

a vehicle for employees and employers to resolve workplace disputes. 

The agency has never been a place without controversy, as we 

deal with the challenges workers and businesses face in our Nation’s ever changing economy. 

Indeed, labor law continues to stir spirited debate in Congress as 

well as in many State houses. Regardless of political tides, this 

agency’s job under 13 presidents has been to serve as the independent enforcer of our Nation’s most fundamental labor laws. 

My colleagues at the Board and I take this duty very seriously, 

and strive to do so in an efficient, responsible fashion. General 

Counsel Griffin will speak more specifically about the agency’s fiscal year 2016 budget request, and the General Counsel’s side of the 

agency, which oversees and employs the vast majority of the staff. 

On the Board side, we have 149 FTEs, and the Board’s funding 

allocation represents about 10 percent of the overall agency budget. 

The Board issued 248 decisions in contested cases last fiscal year. 

Decisions were issued in 205 unfair labor practice cases and 43 representation cases. 

During the first half of the current fiscal year, the Board has 

issued 202 cases, 79 percent of which were unanimous decisions. 

If we continue on this course, we will have one of the most productive years on record. That is not to say there are not issues affecting the agency’s case processing. We have experienced many 

challenges over the prior 2 fiscal years, contentious debates in the 

Senate over confirmation of Board nominees have resulted in numerous vacancies impacting the Board’s ability to process cases. 

Faced with the loss of quorum, recess appointments were made 

to the Board in January of 2012. These appointments were challenged by the Supreme Court in NLRB vs. Noel Canning. On June 

26, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in that case. Following that decision, 103 cases were returned to the Board for decision. 
5 

For parties involved in these cases, expeditious resolution is critical, and the Board has continued to make great strides to resolve 

these cases. In my testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, I expressed the 

Board’s commitment to resolve all of these cases by June 26, 2015, 

1 year after the issuance of the Supreme Court decision. 

At the time of that hearing, the Board had issued decisions in 

73 of those cases with another 27 cases pending and 4 that were 

otherwise resolved. Since that time, the Board has issued an additional 7 decisions, leaving only 16 cases pending with 7 otherwise 

resolved. 

In addition to resolving the Noel Canning impacted cases, my 

colleagues and I have also instituted an enhanced alternative dispute resolution process. This process, led by the Office of the Executive Secretary, will help to minimize unnecessary protracted litigation. I am optimistic that this initiative will help improve our 

agency’s efficient case processing. 

In addition to its case work, the Board has continued to expand 

its outreach efforts. We have worked to provide user friendly information to employees and employers via social media outreach and 

the creation of a free mobile application. 

The Board has also issued a final rule amending its representation procedures. The final rule is intended to enable the Board to 

more effectively administer the National Labor Relations Act. It includes several changes to existing procedures, all designed to reduce inefficiencies, modernize processes, and streamline representation case procedures. 

Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2016 budget request before you 

will enable our agency to provide workers and businesses with the 

effective and efficient case resolution they deserve. 

We have an important role to play in the Nation’s economy. We 

need adequate resources to fulfill the responsibility of enforcing the 

National Labor Relations Act as we have done for 80 years. 

Thank you for this opportunity to meet with you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK GASTON PEARCE

Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I am pleased to appear before you today. Thank you for the invitation. I am privileged to serve as the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, which will 

celebrate its 80th Anniversary in July of this year. 

Since its inception in 1935, the National Labor Relations Board has been tasked 

with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act. The Act, borne out of the Great 

Depression, has long been a vehicle for employees and employers to resolve workplace disputes. The Agency has never been a place without controversy as we deal 

with the challenges workers and businesses face in our Nation’s ever-changing economy. 

Indeed, labor law continues to stir spirited debate, as we have seen play out here 

in Congress. There has also been vigorous debate of these issues in State houses 

in recent months. Regardless of political tides, this Agency’s job, under 13 Presidents has been to serve as the independent enforcer of one this Nation’s most fundamental labor laws. 

My Colleagues at the Board and I take this duty very seriously and strive to do 

so in an efficient, responsible fashion. General Counsel Griffin will speak more specifically about the Agency’s fiscal year 2016 budget request, and his side of the 

agency, which oversees and employs the vast majority of staff. On the Board side, 
6 

we have 149 FTEs and the Board’s funding allocation represents about 10 percent 

of the overall Agency budget. 

The Board issued 248 decisions in contested cases last fiscal year. Decisions were 

issued in 205 unfair labor practice cases and 43 representation cases. During the 

first half of the current fiscal year, the Board has issued decisions in 202 cases, 79 

percent of which were unanimous decisions. If we continue on this course, we will 

have one of our most productive years on record. 

That is not to say that there are not issues affecting the Agency’s case processing. 

We have experienced many challenges over the prior 2 fiscal years. Contentious debates in the Senate over confirmation of Board nominees have resulted in numerous 

vacancies, impacting the Board’s ability to process cases. Faced with a loss of 

quorum, recess appointments were made to the Board on January 4, 2012. These 

appointments were challenged in the Supreme Court in the case of NLRB v. Noel 

Canning. On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in that case. Following that decision, 103 cases were returned to the Board for decision. 

I understand that for parties involved in these cases, expeditious resolution is 

critical, and the Board has continued to make great strides in resolving these cases. 

In my testimony before the House Appropriations’ Subcommittee on Labor, Health, 

and Human Services, I expressed the Board’s commitment to resolving all of these 

cases by June 26th, 2015, 1 year after the issuance of the Supreme Court Decision. 

At the time of that hearing, the Board had issued decisions in 73 of those cases with 

another 27 cases pending and four that were otherwise resolved. Since that time, 

the Board has issued an additional 7 decisions, leaving only 16 cases pending with 

seven otherwise resolved. 

In addition to resolving the Noel Canning impacted cases, my colleagues and I 

have also instituted an enhanced alternative dispute resolution process. This process, led by the Office of the Executive Secretary, will help to minimize unnecessary 

and protracted litigation. I am optimistic that this initiative will help improve our 

Agency’s efficient case processing. 

In addition to its casework, the Board has continued to expand its outreach efforts. We have worked to provide user-friendly information to employees and employers via social media outreach and the creation of a free mobile application. 

These resources help make workers aware of their rights and help employers better 

understand the protections available under the law. 

The Board has also issued a final rule amending its representation case procedures. The final rule is intended to enable the Board to more effectively administer 

the National Labor Relations Act. It includes several changes to existing procedures, 

all designed to reduce inefficiencies, modernize processes, and streamline representation case procedures. 

Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2016 budget request before you will enable our 

Agency to provide workers and businesses with the efficient and effective case resolution they deserve. We have an important role to play in the Nation’s economy, and 

we need adequate resources to fulfill the responsibility of enforcing the National 

Labor Relations Act, as we have proudly done for nearly 80 years. Thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today and I look forward to your questions. 

Senator BLUNT. Mr. Griffin. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD GRIFFIN, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL 

LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Murray, and 

members of the Subcommittee, thank you for asking me to appear 

before you to discuss the agency’s fiscal year 2016 budget request. 

The National Labor Relations Board is responsible for administering the National Labor Relations Act. The Act ensures the 

right of private sector workers to organize and bargain collectively 

with their employers, and to participate in concerted activities to 

improve their pay and working conditions with or without union 

representation. 

The Office of General Counsel serves as the agency’s investigative and prosecutorial branch. I also serve as the agency’s chief administrative officer. I have general supervisory authority over the 

agency’s 26 regional and 24 satellite offices, and directly oversee 7 
7 

headquarter divisions responsible for case handling, administrative, financial and personnel functions. 

I am privileged to work with extremely talented professionals 

and administrators who ensure that the agency is properly serving 

the public. They do this through investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practice cases, handling representation elections, and 

providing support for mission critical functions. 

Our fiscal year 2014 statistics illustrate our efforts to fulfill our 

statutory responsibilities. In excess of 23,000 cases that were filed 

last fiscal year, 20,415 were unfair labor practices, 72 percent of 

which were resolved within 120 days of filing. There were also 

2,585 representation cases filed. 

Unfair labor practice charges are filed by individuals, businesses, 

and unions. After investigation by the regions, 64.7 percent of unfair labor practice charges, almost two-thirds, were found to be 

without merit and dismissed or withdrawn. For those meritorious, 

93.4 percent, more than 9 out of 10, were settled. 

When litigation had to be pursued, 85 percent of our unfair labor 

practice and compliance cases were on in whole or in part before 

the Board or an administrative law judge, and 84.6 percent of our 

cases in the Courts of Appeals were enforced or affirmed in whole 

or in part. 

We recovered over $44 million predominately in back pay on behalf of employees, and secured more than 3,000 offers of reinstatement. 

The agency also has the authority to seek temporary injunctions 

from the Federal District Courts to ensure that the traditional 

NLRB remedies do not come too late to repair the damage done by 

unfair labor practices. Last fiscal year, the Board authorized my office to seek injunctive relief in 38 cases, and all these cases that 

ended up having to be litigated were won in whole or in part. 

The agency’s successful resolution of disputes between employers, 

unions, and employees implements our congressional mandate to 

promote industrial peace. In this regard, the efficient resolution of 

workplace disputes saves all parties from expending significant 

time and resources in debilitating industrial conflict. 

Success in resolving industrial disputes is completely dependent 

upon maintaining adequate staffing, training that staff, engaging 

in appropriate succession planning, investing in long term information technology solutions, and addressing all other operating costs, 

including case related travel. 

About 80 percent of our proposed budget is dedicated to personnel compensation and about 10 percent is required for rent and 

security. More than half of the remaining amount is committed to 

crucial technological improvements to the agency’s public website 

and case handling IT programs. 

The National Labor Relations Board plays a critical role in ensuring that workplace disputes are resolved efficiently and effectively. There is no private right of action under the National Labor 

Relations Act, and thus, workers, employers, and labor unions depend on the agency to resolve their issues. 

Without sufficient funding, both workers and employers stand to 

lose. Employees unlawfully fired for joining together to get better 
8 

wages and working conditions will lose, employers subject to jurisdictional disputes or unlawful picketing will lose. 

I assure you that in fiscal year 2016, the agency will continue to 

execute our congressional mandate in a fair and timely manner. 

The agency’s budget request will help us to carry out our important 

statutory mission. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for inviting me today. I look forward to working with you, and am happy to respond to any questions that you or other members of the committee may have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. GRIFFIN, JR. 

Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the invitation to testify today. I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before you to discuss the Agency’s fiscal year 2016 budget request. 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB/Agency) is responsible for administering the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA/Act), which ensures the right of 

private-sector workers to organize and bargain collectively with their employers and 

to participate in concerted activities to improve their pay and working conditions 

with or without union representation. 

As General Counsel, my Office serves as the investigative and prosecutorial 

branch of the Agency as well as the Agency’s chief administrative officer. In that 

capacity, I have general supervisory authority over the Agency’s 26 regional and 24 

satellite offices located throughout the country (Field offices). In addition, my Office 

directly oversees seven Headquarters divisions, which are tasked with various case 

handling, administrative, financial and personnel functions. 

The Agency has taken a number of proactive steps to ensure that we are serving 

the public in the most effective and fair manner possible. To that end, the Agency 

continues to proactively analyze its workload, technology requirements, and human 

capital in order to take appropriate steps to restructure, consolidate and otherwise 

streamline operations. To ensure that our national footprint meets the needs of the 

public within budgetary constraints, we consolidated six Regional offices and closed 

one Resident office within the past 21⁄2 years. We will continue to regularly assess 

these operations in fiscal year 2016 and beyond. Similarly, in Headquarters, within 

the same timeframe, we developed a Compliance Unit to better assist Regions with 

obtaining remedies for statutory violations and created a Division of Legal Counsel, 

which enhanced our handling of legal and government ethics issues. The creation 

of the Division of Legal Counsel has also centralized the handling all FOIA requests 

and appeals through the FOIA Branch enabling more than 1050 Field office staff 

members to focus primarily on case handling matters. 

Our below-referenced fiscal year 2014 statistics illustrate our dedicated efforts to 

meet our statutory responsibilities. 

The Agency’s case intake was in excess of 23,000 cases. Of those 20,415 were unfair labor practice cases, and 72.3 percent of which were resolved within 120 days 

of filing. 2,585 representation cases were filed. 

Unfair labor practice charges are filed by individuals, businesses, and unions. 

After investigation by the Regions, 64.7 percent of unfair labor practice charges filed 

were found to be without merit. For those deemed meritorious, 93.4 percent were 

settled without litigation. When litigation had to be pursued, 85 percent of our unfair labor practice and compliance cases were won, in whole or in part, before the 

Board or an Administrative Law Judge, and 84.6 percent of our cases in the Court 

of Appeals were enforced or affirmed, in whole or in part. 

As for remedies, last fiscal year the Agency recovered on behalf of employees over 

$44 million, predominantly in back pay, and secured offers of reinstatement for 

more than 3,000 workers. 

In cases where traditional NLRB remedies might come too late to repair the damage done by unfair labor practices, the Agency strives to ensure that appropriate 

remedies are expeditiously sought using Section 10(j) of the Act. This authorizes the 

NLRB to seek temporary injunctions against employers and unions in Federal district courts to stop unfair labor practices while the case is being litigated before administrative law judges and the Board. These temporary injunctions are needed to 

protect the process of collective bargaining and employee rights under the Act. In 

fiscal year 2014, the Board authorized my Office to seek injunctive relief in 38 cases 

and all such cases that were litigated in district court during that fiscal year were 

won, in whole or in part. 
9 

The Agency has been trusted with promoting industrial peace and our ability to 

successfully help resolve disputes between employers, unions, and employees in private sector workplaces is paramount to fulfilling that responsibility. In this regard, 

the efficient resolution of workplace disputes saves employers, unions, and workers—American taxpayers—from expending significant time, resources, and funds in 

debilitating industrial conflict. 

The Agency’s success in this area is completely dependent upon our ability to 

maintain adequate staffing levels, to sufficiently train our staff, to engage in appropriate succession planning in light of the expected loss of a significant number of 

our retirement-eligible employees, to invest in long-term Information Technology 

(IT) solutions, and to address all other operating costs, including case-related travel. 

Most of our proposed budget—about 80 percent—is dedicated to personnel compensation. Further, about 10 percent is required for rent and security. As a result, 

only about 10 percent of the Agency’s overall budget is available to cover the rest 

of the Agency’s necessary activities. More than half of that remaining amount is 

committed to support necessary technological improvements to the Agency’s public 

website and case handling programs. These expenditures are particularly crucial 

now that the Agency has moved to a system where the electronic case file —maintained in an internal computer system called NxGen— is the official case file. Additional funds sustain educational and outreach efforts aimed at providing guidance 

to business owners and human resource professionals, as well as workers, about our 

statute. These outreach efforts include the issuance of public memoranda discussing 

appropriate handbook rules and policies in response to the business community’s desire for guidance in this area, including a comprehensive guidance memorandum 

that was issued in March. 

In addition, the Agency works to leverage resources. We have executed letters of 

agreement with Mexico, Ecuador, and the Philippines designed to strengthen collaborative efforts to provide foreign business owners doing business in the United 

States, as well as workers from those countries, with education, guidance and access 

to information regarding their rights and responsibilities under our statute. I believe that the costs associated with this outreach will pay dividends as employers 

will able to avoid unintentionally violating our statute and workers will be educated 

about their statutory rights to engage with one another to improve their conditions 

of employment, both of which benefits taxpayers, and the country as a whole, 

through increased economic growth. 

The National Labor Relations Board plays a critical role in ensuring that workplace disputes are resolved efficiently and effectively. As there is no private right 

of action under the National Labor Relations Act, workers, employers, and labor 

unions depend on the Agency to resolve their issues effectively and efficiently. Without sufficient funding, both workers and employers stand to lose. I assure you that, 

in fiscal year 2016, the Agency will continue to ensure that our Congressional mandate is executed, and in a fair, timely and quality manner. The Agency’s budget request will help us to carry out this important statutory mission. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for inviting me today. I look forward to working 

with you and am happy to respond to any questions that you may have. 

JOINT EMPLOYER STANDARD

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Mr. Griffin. Thank you, Chairman 

Pearce. Let’s talk, Mr. Griffin, first about what appears to be a new 

view while it is not in a rule yet or maybe not even adopted yet, 

but that we appear to be headed toward adopting a new way to 

look at the franchise model. It is not a model that is unique in our 

country, but certainly it is a model in our country that has been 

used to move lots of people economically forward. 

Your idea that you can no longer—I believe this is what our opinion says—you should no longer distinguish between direct and indirect control of employees. 

I just do not understand how that fits in with what I understand 

this model to be. Who hires people, who provides the benefits for 

people, who borrows the money to build the building, who has the 

liability. It appears to me to be the employer that NLRB has always viewed as the employer. 
10 

What kind of confusion does it bring to the system, whether it 

is a hotel chain or any other franchise operation, when you suddenly are dealing with not only the person who hires the people 

and monitors them and pays them, but the entity that creates the 

sign that goes on the building? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this because it has been the subject of quite a bit of controversy, and it is important, I think, that my views are clear. I 

have responded to a number of congressional oversight requests on 

this question, and I would be happy to provide copies of those responses to you as well. 

[The information follows:] 
11 

LETTERS SUBMITTED BY NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TO CONGRESS
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Essentially what we are looking at in the joint employer situation is whether or not more than one entity is going to 

be responsible for terms and conditions of employment with respect 

to a group of employees. 

There is a case where the Board has requested briefing on the 

subject of whether or not it should abide by its current joint employer standard or whether it should seek to change that joint employer standard, and the case is called Browning-Ferris, and it is 

still pending before the Board. 

In that case, my office filed an Amicus Brief, and what we suggested was that the Board, in light of the changing realities in the 

workplace, in light of the rise of a contingent workforce, and in 

light of changes in certain franchisor/franchisee situations, to the 

nature of some franchise relationships, the Board ought to return 

to the standard that it had from 1935 to 1984, what we characterize as the traditional joint employer standard. 

That standard looked at a number of factors, both direct impacts 

on employment and indirect impacts on employment, on terms and 

conditions of employment. It looked at actual and it looked at potential impacts. There was a case, for example, where one entity 

had the ability pursuant to a contract to determine the wages of 

the second entity. It had not actually done it yet, but it had the 

potential absolute control over wages. 

Under the old standard, both indirect and direct impacts were 

looked at, both actual and potential impacts were looked at. That 

is what we suggest the Board ought to return to in Browning-Ferris. 

Senator BLUNT. Why did the Board change the standard 30 years 

ago? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, it is a good question because the Board did 

not articulate that it was changing the standard. In two cases, TLI 

and Laerco, the Board, without announcing that it was changing 

the standard and without seeking briefing on whether it should 

change the standard, and without acknowledging it was changing 

the standard, the Board looked to certain direct impacts which 

were impacts that it had previously examined, and ratcheted up 

the standard to require those to be the bare minimum for finding 

joint employer status. 

Specifically with respect to franchises, and this is something I 

want to be absolutely clear about, our brief in Browning-Ferris acknowledges that there are a line of cases, Board cases, decided 

under the old standard, under the standard that we are asking the 

Board to return to, where the Board said if what the franchisor is 

trying to do is maintain the uniformity of its brand or product, and 

as a result of that effort, has an indirect impact on certain terms 

and conditions of employment, that indirect impact will be insufficient to make the franchisor a joint employer. 

We specifically say in the Browning-Ferris brief we are not seeking to overturn those cases, but where the franchisor exerts more 

control, where the franchisor pursuant to the current technologies 

available that allows franchisors to have real time information 

about what is going on at every franchisee location and insert 

themselves more into the determination of terms and conditions of 

employment, in those situations, we would say if the facts are dem-
22 

onstrated in a particular case, the franchisor may be a joint employer. 

In the McDonald’s cases, which are currently being litigated, 

there is an allegation that McDonald’s Corporate is a joint employer with franchisees. However, in the McDonald’s cases, we are 

proceeding under the current Board’s standard, and we believe we 

can demonstrate facts that will make out joint employer status 

under the current standard. 

We are also arguing in the alternative should the Board adopt 

the standard we advocate for in Browning-Ferris that that standard would certainly mean joint employer status for McDonald’s as 

well. 

Just this week, we published on our website in a case called 

Nutritionality, which involves a franchisor/franchisee relationship 

for a product known as Freshii. There are about 100 of these 

around the world. 

The advice memo said applying either the current standard or 

the prior standard, the Freshii relationship was not sufficient to 

make—— 

Senator BLUNT. Unless someone else gets there, I want to come 

back to this. I do not want to take all the time. 

One question I want to ask is are you doing what you think the 

Board did in 1984, which is not going through an open public comment rulemaking process but just having an opinion from you as 

to what the Board should do moving forward. 

We will come back to that. Senator Murray. 

CASE REPRESENTATION ELECTION PROCESS RULE

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. Chairman Pearce, there 

has been a lot of rhetoric about the new streamlining elections. I 

have heard it called an ambush or solution in search of a problem. 

I actually disagree with that. I think workers should have access 

to free and fair elections when they decide on union representation, 

and in order to do that, we have to reduce the needless delays and 

obstacles that have interfered with the election process. 

Could you explain to us why it was so important for the Board 

to consider changes to the process? What was wrong with the existing system? 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Senator Murray, for giving me the opportunity to talk about that. The responsibility of the Board is to 

make the election process and the procedures that go along with 

it to be as effective and efficient as possible. 

The Board has always provided procedures for the election process, not all these procedures were subject to notice and comment 

because these were all administratively handled, which we were allowed to do. 

We have done tweaks to the procedures over time in more of a 

patchwork fashion. These procedures, in order for us to be able to 

streamline, provide sensitivity towards the modernization that exists now in current technology, and uniformity, so that people can 

experience the same procedures whether they file a petition in 

California or New York or in Texas, and a transparency so that all 

the stakeholders have an understanding as to what is going on. 
23 

We felt it was necessary to provide a reformation of those rules, 

and that is what we did. Of course, we did this after much notice 

and comment, full transparency. We had public hearings. We had 

thousands of commentary that we reviewed and the like, so that 

we could make an informed decision. 

I think we achieved that goal. We have something that has been 

modified to provide a streamlined modernized uniform and transparent set of rules. 

Senator MURRAY. With regard to the word ‘‘ambush,’’ I understand that employers are actually free to talk the subject of unions 

with employees well before an election petition is filed; is that correct? 

Mr. PEARCE. That is correct. Nothing in terms of the communications between employers and employees has been altered by these 

rules. 

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Griffin, I wanted to follow up on the chairman’s questions about the joint employer status. Your decision to 

issue labor violations against McDonald’s as a joint employer with 

franchises, which he asked you about, in February we actually had 

a hearing in the Health Committee on this. 

CHANGES IN THE LABOR MARKET

I want to highlight a little bit why this decision is so important 

to working families and low wage workers. Can you explain the 

ways the labor market has changed over the last 30 years that 

made this decision so important? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. As we expressed in the Browning-Ferris brief and 

a number of the other Amicus Briefs filed in the Browning-Ferris 

case pointed out, there has been an exponential rise in what is 

called the contingent workforce, where aspects of the employment 

relationship, which used to be held entirely by one employer, have 

been separated between a number of entities. 

There are temporary agencies that provide workers. There are 

payroll agencies that carry people who work for someone else and 

fulfill all the payroll functions. 

That is one substantial change, and it alters the nature of the 

employment relationship where you are paid and all your benefits 

come through one entity but you are directed in the workplace by 

another entity. 

Senator MURRAY. Directed including what you can wear, what 

hours you work, what policies you have to follow? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Correct, and how you will fulfill your employment 

functions, what hours you show up, and things like that. 

Similarly, with respect to the franchise relationship, you have 

situations where there are now computer programs that allow 

franchisors to maintain real time information about not just gross 

sales but also how many people are working, what their hours are, 

and to direct if the relationship between the labor costs and the 

gross sales reach a point that they do not like, for people to go 

home even though they may be scheduled otherwise for a full shift. 

There are a number of changes to the workplace that call for a 

reviewing doctrine to make sure that it is still relevant and we still 

fulfill our function to promote the practice and procedure of collective bargaining. 
24 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

STATE RIGHT TO WORK LAWS

Senator BLUNT. Mr. Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pearce and Mr. 

Griffin, welcome, good to see you. Mr. Pearce, you said it was the 

duty of the NLRB to enforce fundamental labor law. Would you 

agree Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act is a part of that fundamental labor law? 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. That gives States the right to pass a socalled right to work law, which 25 States, I believe, have done, 

right? 

Mr. PEARCE. That is right. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Tennessee is one of those States. The Tennessee law says two things. One is you do not have to join a union 

in order to hold a job. Does that sound like a correct law authorized 

by the NLRA? 

Mr. PEARCE. I believe so; yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. It also says you do not have to pay dues or 

fees to the union in order to have a job. Does that sound like a 

right to work law authorized by the National Labor Relations 

Board? 

Mr. PEARCE. It sounds like a right to work law that by statute 

a State is permitted to have; certainly. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. There is a section of the National Labor Relations Act, 8(b)(1)(A), which the Supreme Court 

said in 1967 requires a union to serve the interests of all of the 

members of the bargaining unit, all the employees, whether or not 

they belong to the union. 

The NLRB in 1976 said a union cannot lawfully refuse to process 

a grievance of an employee in the union because he is not a member. In a non-right to work State, you can be fired if you try to assert those rights. 

What I am trying to understand is why the Board in April of this 

year requested legal briefs in an appeal of a case in Florida that 

asks these questions, in effect, whether unions in a right to work 

State like Tennessee can force employees who do not belong to the 

union to pay fees or other dues’ like charges, and the legal briefs 

are to be about whether you can charge those non-union members 

fees, how much you can be allowed to charge, and what actions a 

union could take to make sure it gets paid. 

Why would you ask those questions when the law has been settled for 40 years, that a State may pass a law like the ones I read 

to you in Tennessee that says you cannot do that? 

Mr. PEARCE. The case that is before us is one that I could not 

comment specifically on because it is pending. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I am not asking you to do that. 

Mr. PEARCE. I understand. 

Senator ALEXANDER. If the laws that Tennessee has, for example, 

that you do not have to join a union, you do not have to pay fees, 

and the Supreme Court and the NLRB have said the union has to 
25 

serve everybody who works at the plant, then why do you ask the 

question how much of a fee could they charge? 

Mr. PEARCE. The issue presented in the case is whether a union 

can charge a fee for processing grievances of non-members. 

Senator ALEXANDER. That is exactly right. That is what I read 

to you. The Supreme Court in 1967 and the NLRB in 1976 says 

that a union cannot lawfully refuse to process a grievance of an 

employee in the union because he is a non-member period. That is 

the law. 

Mr. PEARCE. I agree. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Why would you ask how much of a fee could 

the union charge? 

Mr. PEARCE. The Board is soliciting briefs on the question of 

whether or not a fee can be charged for the processing of a grievance. 

Senator ALEXANDER. But the Board has already held that a fee 

cannot be charged, and the Supreme Court has held the same 

thing. Why would you change the law? 

Mr. PEARCE. I respectfully disagree. I think—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Your opinion said in 1976 ‘‘A union cannot 

lawfully refuse to process a grievance of an employee in the union 

because he is a non-member.’’ Unquote. 

Mr. PEARCE. That is right. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Why would you ask for a brief on that question of how much the fee could be and what the union could do if 

the employee does not pay it? 

Mr. PEARCE. The question that is asked for briefing is whether 

or not—it is not a question of whether or not a union can refuse 

to process a grievance of a non-member, because I think that is a 

matter well settled, as you pointed out. 

The question is whether or not it would be lawful or permissible 

for a union to charge a fee for the processing of a grievance, because of the administrative costs involved in processing a grievance, particularly where non-members are not obligated to pay 

dues. 

Senator ALEXANDER. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, and my time 

is up, that is undermining the right to work law, and there is talk 

often about the middle class. I cannot think of anything more damaging to middle income Tennesseans than anything that would undermine the right to work law. 

I have seen over the last 30 years how it has attracted the auto 

industry to our State, created a competitive industry, good jobs, 

helps families. The reason they came was because we had a different labor environment, because we had the right to create a 

right to work law, and I am very concerned that just these requests 

for briefs on law that has been settled for 40 years suggests to me 

the Board is thinking about undermining a State like Tennessee’s 

ability to have a right to work law. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BLUNT. Mr. Lankford. 
26 

PROTECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION UNDER NEW ELECTION

PROCESS RULE

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, 

thank you for being here. I want to ask about the rule change from 

April 14, which shortens the length of days on union certification 

but it also allows access to personal information of the workers. 

My question is what processes or regulations have been put into 

place to help protect workers who do not want their personal information, their e-mail, their cell phone numbers, their home addresses, their shift times, shared with any outside organizations? Has 

there been a process or regulation put into place for workers who 

do not want that information shared? 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Senator Lankford, for giving me an opportunity to address that question. It should be known that the Supreme Court has set forth, and this is 50 years’ worth of law—has 

required employers to supply the names and addresses of employees in the bargaining unit to the union that has filed the petition 

in advance of the election. 

That is supported by the Supreme Court. What this does is take 

into consideration modern technology where e-mail addresses are 

the most common mode of communication, and those and cell 

phone numbers where available to the employer. 

Senator LANKFORD. Are there any regulations intact that when 

that information is shared, e-mails, shift times, cell phone numbers, from any entity that gets that outside, what they do with that 

information, how it is distributed, how it is collected, how it is 

managed, the security of that information? It is pretty private information. 

Mr. PEARCE. I understand that it is very private information. 

This information is being supplied to a party to an election process. 

That is the party that is entitled to it under these rules. 

Senator LANKFORD. Correct, but what do they do with it? What 

limitations do they have with that information? Are there any regulations on them, what they do with that information? 

Mr. PEARCE. If they abuse the use of that information, unfair 

labor practice charges can be filed against them. Objections to elections can result. 

Senator LANKFORD. Could they sell that information, could they 

distribute it to another union outside of their community? Could 

they distribute it to other like-minded individuals or outside 

groups? 

Mr. PEARCE. There has not been any documented cases where I 

have seen—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Could they? Is there a limitation on that, on 

sharing their personal information with another group? 

Mr. PEARCE. The limitation that we have placed on them is the 

abuse of that information would be a basis for unfair labor practices or objections. 

Senator LANKFORD. I am not talking about abuse of the information. I am talking about sharing that information. They now collect 

private information of individuals. 
27 

If the local job training program came and said we want the shift 

times and the private information because we want to do vocational 

training for people here, they could not get that information. 

If the local fire department walked in and said they wanted that 

information, they could not get that. If the FBI walked in and said 

they wanted that information, they would have to get a subpoena 

to get that information. 

This information is shared, and I cannot seem to find a regulation that then restricts how that group that gets it then manages 

that information. That is the question I want to ask. 

Mr. PEARCE. The rule specifically deals with that information 

being used solely for the purposes of the election. 

Senator LANKFORD. I would be interested to know how that is 

managed because that is a potential that is sitting out there for individuals’ private information, for individuals that do not want to 

share that information. 

JOINT EMPLOYER STANDARD

I do have some very serious concerns on the shift and the franchise rules as well, because of the way the definition is sitting out 

there, Mr. Griffin. 

In your brief, you made the statement that your concern was it 

inhibits meaningful collective bargaining. I believe the term was 

‘‘direct, indirect or potential control over workers.’’ 

The potential control over workers has a tremendous broad definition that this particular Board may have an understanding of, 

but 10 years from now, 15 years from now, what does the potential 

control over workers—how far does this go to broaden this definition? 

We have hundreds of thousands literally of franchisors around 

the country. I have a couple of issues here. One is has there been 

any study of what happens with a significant change in our economy with a significant change in the franchise rule? Has there 

been any evaluation of the economic impact of that? 

I am interested in this comment about the workforce has 

changed significantly in the past several decades, so we need to return to a rule that we set aside 30 years ago, because there has 

been so much progress and change, we need to do something we 

used to do a long time ago. 

Those two do not seem to jive to me. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you very much, Senator, for asking on this. 

A couple of points. The first is it has always been the case regardless of whether it is the current standard or the prior standard that 

the Board looks at a number of factors in making this determination, and in each instance, it is a very fact bound determination. 

What we are suggesting is a return to a standard, and incidentally, the EEOC filed a brief arguing this standard also be adopted 

because it is the standard that is applied in EEOC cases currently, 

so the EEOC made the point that the Board law and essentially 

all the labor enforcement law ought to operate on the same joint 

employer standard. 

What we would be arguing for in conjunction with the EEOC is 

looking at additional factors, and again, on a fact bound individualized basis if there was sufficient demonstration that the punitive 
28 

joint employer had sufficient involvement, including examining indirect involvement examining potential involvement, that meaningful collective bargaining could not take place without them present 

at the table, then they should be held to be a joint employer. It is 

always going to be a fact by fact determination. 

Senator LANKFORD. My time is up. There has not been an economic study on the impact of this? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. There were briefs filed on both sides of this in the 

Browning-Ferris case. There were a number of briefs filed that said 

the joint employer standard ‘‘ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’’ There were 

a number of briefs urging a change. Many of those briefs cited economic studies and other information. 

The Board itself did not conduct a separate economic study and 

in fact, it is statutorily prohibited from doing so. 

Senator BLUNT. We will have time for another round if you have 

time, Mr. Lankford. Mr. Shelby. 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. A lot of people are concerned, Mr. 

Chairman, about it seems that this Administration, and you are 

part of that, are trying to unionize America. What is the percentage of union workers in the private sector in America? Is it 10 percent, 9 percent, 8 percent? What is it, roughly? Not government. I 

am talking about privately owned companies, private companies. 

Mr. PEARCE. My understanding is it is a little over 6 percent. 

Senator SHELBY. Six percent? 

Mr. PEARCE. That is right. 

Senator SHELBY. Getting into the franchise question here, are 

you moving to trying to say that if I had a franchise, this is 

McDonald’s, but say it is Jiffy Lube or something like that, two or 

three of them, I buy the franchise. I go by the rules, but I hire the 

people. I fire the people. I hope not. If they did not work, I would 

have to. I pay the people. 

Let’s say I promote myself, say a 401(k) for them, everything, 

control. I control the workforce. That has been traditionally separate from say the corporate company that issues the franchise 

being part of a unit, is that not right? Are you not moving toward 

unionization in areas where we have not seen that before? 

Mr. PEARCE. Unfortunately, Senator, McDonald’s is not a case 

before the Board, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment 

on that. Perhaps you might want to direct that question to—— 

RIGHT TO WORK

Senator SHELBY. We will watch what you do. We are concerned 

with what you are doing and the direction you are going. I want 

to associate myself—I come from Alabama. We are a right to work 

State and we want to stay that way. 

If somebody wants to join a union, that is fine. If they do not 

want to join the union, that is also fine. There ought to be a balance there. It has been until this Administration and you folks 

have gone in there and you are trying to change the rules. Everybody knows that. It is pretty transparent. 
29 

BLOCKING CHARGES

I have a question. According to the National Labor Relations 

Board’s 2015 budget justification, one of the agency’s stated major 

goals is to promptly and fairly investigate, prosecute, and resolve 

unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act. 

Often times, unions file multiple rounds of what they call ‘‘blocking charges,’’ where union election petitions are placed on hold 

when an unfair labor practice claim is filed with the NLRB. 

A lot of us are concerned with the National Labor Relation’s 

Board’s attempt to keep union election campaigns open, just seems 

like indefinitely, as long as possible through multiple rounds of 

blocking charges, manipulating the system. 

For example, in Alabama, my State, there was a vote left open 

for over 4 years, Mr. Chairman, due to an ongoing pending investigation. Somebody filed an unfair labor. An ultimate decision that 

the blocking charges—I fear that without timely consideration—it 

is important. The blocking charges are a form of extortion without 

an end in sight. Where do you stop? 

Can you explain to the committee what a blocking charge is, and 

if there is any definitive date in which the National Labor Relations Board must complete its investigation into the allegations to 

abide by its goal of ‘‘providing prompt’’—these are your words or 

the Board’s words—‘‘and fair investigations?’’ 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Senator, for giving me this opportunity. 

A blocking charge is usually a charge that is filed because the nature of the unfair labor practice would negatively affect the laboratory conditions of the election—— 

Senator SHELBY. Give me an example of what you mean? Just an 

example. 

Mr. PEARCE. An example would be the union files a petition of 

shoe factory workers, let’s say, and the employer decides to start 

firing every worker that he suspects has voted for the union, or the 

employer has determined that Joe in shift one is responsible for 

bringing the union in, so he fires Joe, and as a result, everybody—— 

Senator SHELBY. I did not think you could do that. 

Mr. PEARCE. Excuse me? 

Senator SHELBY. I did not think you could do that. I thought they 

could not fire them for that reason. 

Mr. PEARCE. They could not legally fire them for that reason, but 

that happens. That is why we are in business. 

Because of these rampant unfair labor practices, the laboratory 

conditions are such that people could not fairly feel they are exercising free choice in voting for a union, a blocking charge would result, and that charge would have to be completely investigated, and 

the unfair labor practice resolved, so the slate would be clear so 

you have an open, free and fair election. 

Senator SHELBY. What if an employer filed an unfair labor 

charge against the union trying to organize, do you close the election or do you keep it open? What do you do? 

Mr. PEARCE. The employer has the ability under certain circumstances to file unfair labor practices, but usually that is because of a union engaging in activities that disrupt the workplace. 
30 

The employer has also the ability to file objections to conduct 

that would cause the election, if found meritorious, to be set aside 

and a new election held. 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF RELATED TO EMPLOYEE TERMINATION

Senator SHELBY. Let me get in another question. My time is limited. It is my understanding that the National Labor Relations 

Board explores the opportunity to file a lawsuit in Federal Court 

seeking injunctive relief each time a union supporter is terminated 

by a company. 

Does the National Labor Relations Board have internal processes 

in place to provide a means for reinstating a terminated employee, 

and if so, it seems to me that filing that lawsuit could be unnecessary and redundant use of resources. Is that true? Do you go to 

court every time just about somebody is fired for cause and noncause? 

Mr. PEARCE. Senator, I do not think that is entirely the case. The 

only time the General Counsel goes to court seeking an injunction 

is where there is irreparable harm that has been caused as a result 

of the unfair labor practice, and in order for stability to be restored 

and not irreparably damaged by waiting for the litigation, the General Counsel would go to Federal Court to seek a cease and desist. 

REGULATORY COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Senator SHELBY. We often hear about the cost of compliance of 

Federal regulations everywhere, including the National Labor Relations Board. Does the National Labor Relations Board ever conduct 

cost/benefit analysis on rules that it promulgates? If not, why not? 

In other words, what is the cost/benefit of a rule? There are plusses 

and minuses everywhere. 

Mr. PEARCE. Certainly. There are different rules as well. We 

would have to assess what kind of rule we are talking about. If we 

want to use—— 

Senator SHELBY. We are just talking about a cost/benefit analysis, economic costs. 

Mr. PEARCE. Right, certainly. One of the reasons why we did 

these recent rules is because we wanted to eliminate unnecessary 

litigation. There is a lot of resources expended for unnecessary litigation that we thought it would be appropriate for the American 

public to benefit from what we hope to be cost savings as a result 

of these circumstances. 

We have pushed to post-election a lot of issues that do not necessarily have to be decided in a pre-election hearing until after the 

election. Oftentimes, depending on the result of the election, those 

issues become mute and become unnecessary for litigation to take 

place. 

When we have litigation, it involves the paying of court reporters, the paying of government attorneys, the attorneys representing 

each of the stakeholders in the process. That becomes an expensive 

proposition. 

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has run, but I 

could ask quickly one last question? 

Senator BLUNT. Yes. 
31 

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS

Senator SHELBY. Unit determination. This has been raised here. 

I think it is important from an employer, employee, and the union 

perspective as to which employees are placed in a voting or bargaining unit. This is especially true for employees who may have 

virtually all their terms and conditions of employment determined 

by a labor agreement negotiated between their union and their employer. 

Unit determination is also extremely important for the employer, 

as a strike, a work stoppage by one small micro unit could effectively shut down a plant or all of the employer’s operations, as you 

know. 

What steps if any has the Board, the National Labor Relations 

Board, taken to prevent the undue proliferation of bargaining units 

in an employer’s place of business? In other words, one little employee can shut down the whole place. You have seen that happen. 

Senator BLUNT. Before you answer, Mr. Griffin, we are going to 

count my time in the second round to Senator Shelby. I might have 

something before the powerful banking committee one of these 

days. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. You will have all the time you need. 

Senator BLUNT. After you answer that, we will go to Senator 

Murray and then Senator Lankford. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. Go ahead. 

Mr. PEARCE. It is addressed to me, is that correct, Senator? 

Senator SHELBY. Yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. First of all, we would say there has not been any 

documented experience where over proliferation of bargaining units 

have negatively impacted an employer that has been presented to 

this agency. 

What we have done is we have issued cases like Specialty 

Healthcare where we have recognized the traditional standards for 

an appropriate bargaining unit. The average bargaining unit in the 

United States, the median bargaining unit in the United States 

ranges from 23 to 28 employees nationwide. 

Since the passage of Specialty Healthcare, which was confirmed 

by the Circuit Court and is adopting a standard that was recommended by another Circuit Court, there has been no change in 

terms of the proliferation or over proliferation of the bargaining 

units. 

In fact, this unit determination process has been running very 

smoothly. 

Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Senator. Senator Murray. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CASELOAD

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. I did want to ask you, Mr. Chairman, about your budget request while you were here. Some have 

said that the NLRB’s budget should actually be cut because the 

caseload has declined. 

Can you talk to us about the trends in the Board’s workload? 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Senator. I am happy to talk about that. 

The budget request is a modest one. We have had to deal with se-
32 

questration. We have had to deal with shutdowns of the government. We have had to deal with hiring freezes over time that we 

have never recovered from. 

The caseload, while the numbers are different, do not completely 

tell the story. For example, an election run by this agency for 20 

voters or one for 45,000 voters is still considered one case. An example would be in 2013 where a California election had that many 

voters. That is still one case. 

Our caseloads are very time and fact intensive. Our employees 

are highly specialized individuals that have to investigate cases 

over vast regions of the United States. We are covering territories 

that are hundreds of miles apart. We have few investigators to be 

able to do that. 

Senator MURRAY. That adds additional time to any decisions? 

Mr. PEARCE. That certainly has that impact. More staff would 

help to process cases faster. We can deal with complexities of case 

issues. On the Board side, when we get these complex cases, there 

are thousands and thousands of pages of transcripts. We are deciding cases, applying this 80-year-old law to an ever changing work 

environment. They are all very fact specific, and it requires a lot 

of intensive analysis and investigation. 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WORK ON BEHALF OF NON-UNION

WORKERS

Senator MURRAY. Some have said because there is a declining 

rate in unionization that the NLRB caseload has been declining. 

The NLRA actually protects all private sector workers, including 

those that do not belong to a union. 

Talk a little bit about the ways the NLRB is acting to protect the 

rights of non-union workers. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you for that, Senator. It is the case that Section 7 of the Act applies to all employees. We have circumstances 

where two or more employees want to get together and talk about 

their wages or complain about working conditions. Employees may 

not be able to function because the lighting is bad or there is not 

enough heat in the facility and they want to discuss that, and they 

may be penalized as a result of that. 

Those are employees that are entitled to the protection of the 

Act. 

Senator MURRAY. Even though they do not belong to a union, 

they have protections in this country? 

Mr. PEARCE. That is exactly right. The social media cases are another example where you have a lot of employees that are exchanging discussions about terms and conditions of employment over social media. The vast majority of those social media cases that we 

have decided did not involve unionizing. It involved employees complaining about working conditions and us having to address those 

issues. 

Senator MURRAY. Okay. Thank you very much, and thank you 

both for being here. 

JOINT EMPLOYER STANDARD

Senator BLUNT. Mr. Lankford. 
33 

Senator LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to come 

back again to the franchise issue. The concern is there are so many 

hundreds of thousands of businesses around the country that are 

franchises that know the rules right now. 

The concern is you were saying so much has changed in the business world over the last 30 years that we need to return to a rule 

that we had 30 years ago to catch up with what has happened in 

the last 30 years. 

Change is significantly the rules of the game, and at a time when 

we have increasing complexity in Federal regulations, and local 

and State regulations, many small businesses need additional help 

just trying to keep up with the rules. They are not trying to break 

the rules, they are trying to keep up with the rapidly changing 

pace of the rules. 

My question is when the issue is direct, indirect, or potential control of an employee, how that gets defined in a way when they are 

dealing with just basic quality standards and verification of standards, which a franchisor would want to do? 

They want to make sure the franchises out there are maintaining 

quality standards, but it suddenly creates this varied rule of where 

is control, where is not control, what is indirect control, what is potential control of an employee where they may be just giving counsel on a very complicated set of labor laws. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Senator, because this is an ongoing battle. 

Senator LANKFORD. It is very, very important especially in our 

economy. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. It is very important, and it is very important that 

we are clear about it. The first thing just to emphasize is that 

under the old standard, the standard we are talking about, the traditional standard, that we are asking a return to, there were these 

cases where if the franchisor is just seeking to maintain the quality 

of the brand or product and the uniformity of the brand or product, 

they are not a joint employer, and we have specifically said we are 

not seeking to overturn those cases. That is number one. 

Number two, in each of these cases, the small business is the 

franchisee. In each of these cases, if there is a merit determination 

made, there is no question that the franchisee has committed—if 

it is adjudicated, the facts are demonstrated, the franchisee is the 

one that has committed the unfair labor practice. 

The issue here is with respect to the larger business, the 

franchisor, and whether or not they are jointly responsible in any 

way, shape, or form. In terms of the small business, the small business either is on the hook if it is a merit determination or they are 

not, if there is no merit. As I indicated before, the vast majority 

of cases, 60 percent of these cases, are dismissed. 

With respect to the franchisor, there is no open case currently in 

the United States where we are seeking to hold a franchisor liable 

under the new standard. In each instance where we are seeking to 

hold a franchisor liable at this point, it is under the current standard. 

We are arguing—— 

Senator LANKFORD. Right, you are asking for the old standard. 
34 

Mr. GRIFFIN. For the old standard, and we are arguing for it because in our view, there are instances where the franchisor goes 

beyond seeking to protect the brand or product, goes beyond the indirect impact on employment that comes in that situation, and has 

a more immediate impact on employment, or a bigger impact on 

employment, and under those circumstances, if particular facts are 

present, we think the franchisor should be a joint employer. 

We also think there are circumstances, and this recent advice 

memo in Nutritionality is a classic example, where the franchisor 

does not have sufficient involvement, and therefore, should not be 

held responsible. 

Senator LANKFORD. The issue is you are opening up this opportunity for a lot of litigation here every time a franchisor engages 

with a franchisee, and that back and forth conversation is common, 

especially with someone that is new starting a business, a first 

time franchise owner, they are trying to get the business started. 

They are asking for lots of advice, and suddenly, the larger company has to back up and say I cannot give you counsel, I cannot 

engage at that level because suddenly that is going to connect all 

of us, where in the past, that was common, to try to help someone 

get off the ground. 

You want training. You want equipment. You want people to be 

able to move in and start small businesses. 

My concern is this creates this artificial wall that actually diminishes the quality of our businesses, diminishes the incentive to 

start new franchises, and puts this fear into franchisors that I cannot really engage with the quality oversight and verification that 

I used to do. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Senator, as I indicated, if the nature of the engagement has to do with maintaining the quality of the brand or product or the uniformity of the brand or product, there are cases on 

that, and we have explicitly said, and I repeat, we are not seeking 

to overturn—— 

Senator LANKFORD. I understand that, but when the redefinition 

changes to direct, indirect, or potential control, there is a lot of 

interaction between these companies, and you know that full well. 

The words ‘‘potential control’’ can mean a lot of things, and it 

does create just the fear of this wall that I am concerned will diminish the quality of our companies across the entire country and 

will discourage people from buying into franchises or will set the 

standard so high that franchisors will not release that authority to 

people that would like to start a first time business, but it is only 

going to be people that already have established businesses, and it 

is tougher to get in the market. 

I know this is hypothetical, but you are wading into territory 

that has serious long term implications for our economy and for a 

lot of people that want to start small businesses, and I would tell 

you to tread carefully, and I am aware you are trying to get the 

courts to engage in this rather than the Board to actually have to 

make this rule, and I get that. 

I am telling you when this comes around, this is going to have 

long term impacts. I would encourage us to go more careful and 

with more comment on what we are doing. 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 
35 

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Senator. On that topic, give me an 

example of some circumstances. You said there are circumstances 

where the franchisor has more direct control. 

Maybe I will ask one specific question. In Senator Shelby’s possible Jiffy Lube, if the franchisor says everybody that works there 

has to wear a shirt that says Jiffy Lube, I think the question of 

uniforms came up, is that control of the employee because you tell 

them they have to wear a shirt that says Jiffy Lube if they work 

for a Jiffy Lube franchisee? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Senator. There is a specific case under 

the old standard that addresses that issue and specifically with respect to uniforms, which would otherwise be a mandatory term or 

condition of employment, that you would be obligated to bargain 

over. 

The Board has said in those prior cases that one of the aspects 

of determining the uniformity or maintaining the uniformity of the 

brand or product has to do with the wearing of uniforms and that 

is an insufficient impact to turn the franchisor into a joint employer with the franchisee. 

That is settled law and we are not seeking to overturn that. 

Senator BLUNT. Is it insufficient by itself or it is insufficient unless there are two or three other things that are similar that suddenly it becomes sufficient? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. When I said before that each one of these cases is 

fact specific, there is a wide variety of the ways franchisors deal 

with franchisees. Some franchisors, for example, own the property 

that the franchisee is located in. That obviously leads to a different 

relationship, particularly in response to labor disputes. 

Under those circumstances, it may well be the franchisor provides the security for the facility, the franchisor who calls the police with respect to alleged trespassers and things like that. 

That is a very different nature of a relationship than a franchisor 

who has no involvement with locating the property, who has nothing to do with siting the franchisee’s enterprise. 

Each one of these cases is going to depend to some extent on the 

facts and circumstances. What I was saying was the case law 

where one of the indirect impacts that was essentially discounted 

because it went to the uniformity of the brand or product was specifically uniform. 

Senator BLUNT. If the landlord relationship becomes the critical 

issue here, I thought it was the employer/employee relationship, 

what the National Labor Relations Board was concerned about. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. One of the things that you look at in these matters 

is who has control over labor relations. It may be the individual 

franchisor is responding to a labor dispute in a way that includes 

responding to picketing or leafletting or other types of protected activity that is going on at the franchisee location, that is one factor 

I was mentioning. 

It may be the reason they are doing it is because it is the landlord. It may be the reason they are doing it is because they have 

some direct control over labor relations. That would be a factor that 

would be brought into play and considered in the multiplicity of 

factors that would be examined in this type of a test. 
36 

Again, it is a fact intensive look at a particular relationship, and 

it is very difficult to make an one size fits all type determination. 

Senator BLUNT. Is the only voice so far officially in this action, 

the only voice of NLRB, your brief to the court, in the case before 

the court? There is no NLRB rule out there, there is no proposed 

change in rule, there is no comment period on should we go back 

to the 1984 rule or is there? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. To be clear, the brief is not before a court. It was 

the Board itself that has the Browning-Ferris case in front of it. 

Senator BLUNT. We are not waiting for a court to decide, we are 

waiting for the Board to decide? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. We are waiting for the Board to decide the Browning-Ferris case, and they did a call for briefing. They received 

many briefs from both parties—— 

Senator BLUNT. One of them was from their own attorney? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. One of which was from the General Counsel’s Office, and the General Counsel’s Office, just to be clear, has multiple 

roles. When a case is before the Board, when it is being investigated and when it is being prosecuted, the General Counsel’s Office—the regional office is acting on behalf of the General Counsel 

and is the chief prosecutor. 

Once the Board issues a decision in the case, the General Counsel’s Office has another branch, the Appellant and Supreme Court 

Litigation Branch, which defends the Board decision, even if it is 

contrary to what the General Counsel advocated before it, defends 

the Board in the courts. 

In the case of Browning-Ferris, the General Counsel’s Office is 

expressing the view of the General Counsel’s Office as to what joint 

employer standard the Board should adopt. The Board has not 

adopted it yet. That case is still under consideration. 

Our brief was not the only brief, as I said. 

Senator BLUNT. It was the only brief from the General Counsel? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. It was the only brief from the General Counsel of 

the Board. 

Senator BLUNT. It does seem to me that your earlier explanation 

about nobody can go back and quite figure out why the Board 

changed its view in 1984 could also be the ongoing view of why the 

Board changed its view in 2015. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, there was no request for briefing. There was 

no notice to the parties. There was no announcement that the 

Board was considering the issues in those cases. 

To the contrary here, the Board had a specific notice for briefing, 

specifically laid out questions with respect to the joint employer 

standard, and asked not just parties but for amicus as well to file 

their views, and there were quite a few briefs that were filed in response, so the Board could have a multiplicity of views, some saying stay with the standard, some saying change the standard, some 

simply providing information about the changing nature of the 

workplace. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, I think even in the testimony today when 

we look back at it, we are going to see lots of potential, from the 

landlord relationship to this relationship, to that relationship, that 

affects you if you want to be a potential franchisee. 
37 

I would have some sympathy with one instance you brought up 

where somebody else hires people, pays the unemployment compensation, pays the disability, however that works in a given State, 

and then the person who is the franchisee contracts with them to 

provide the employees—it would seem to me whoever pays the people, hires the people is responsible for what happens and all the 

potential liability for that workforce, that is a different circumstance than whether the franchisor is doing this. 

I think what many of us would feel here is this has been a significant model for people with hard work and determination and 

willing to take a chance and can get the banker to take the chance 

with them to create an opportunity to be an owner of a small business, but now suddenly you don’t know if you really own the small 

business or Jiffy Lube International owns the small business. 

It is very complicating, I think. This is a case where clearly there 

is a lot of interest here. I would certainly ask you to recognize the 

interest and how you move forward in this. 

Senator Murray, do you have other questions? 

Senator LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, can I ask one quick follow 

up? 

Senator BLUNT. Yes, sure can. 

Senator LANKFORD. This has been pending for 10 months. Do you 

know when this decision is going to be made by the Board? 

Mr. PEARCE. The Board is under active review of the case. I cannot predict exactly when it will be decided. 

Senator LANKFORD. We do not know, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years? 

Mr. PEARCE. That is right. 

Senator LANKFORD. What is typical? It has been before the Board 

for 10 months. What is a typical time period? 

Mr. PEARCE. I am not trying to be cagey, but these cases are all 

fact intensive. These cases also involve a lot of legal theories and 

concepts. There are complex issues. We have five Board members, 

all of whom are independently evaluating and have their independent views with respect to how the case should be decided. 

We are in active deliberation on that. It is our hope this case will 

be decided as expeditiously as possible, and we are working very 

diligently in that regard. I cannot say more. 

Senator BLUNT. Other questions, Senator Lankford? 

Senator LANKFORD. No, thank you. 

COMPOSITION OF BARGAINING UNITS AND ‘‘MICRO-UNIONS’’ 

Senator BLUNT. I have just one or two more. On the micro union 

question that Senator Shelby asked about, Mr. Pearce, you said 

there were no examples where over proliferation presented a problem, I think that is how you stated it. No examples of whether this 

complicates the workforce in any way? 

Mr. PEARCE. There has been no documented examples that have 

been presented before us where over proliferation of bargaining 

units has created any kind of labor issues. 

Senator BLUNT. I thought one of the purposes here of collective 

bargaining—Missouri is not a right to work State, so we have bargaining, we have unions. I am supportive of what they do and how 

they do it, and the law that allows them to do it. 
38 

I thought the purpose here was to negotiate with one voice rather than individual voices. It seems to me this idea that we could 

have almost an infinite number of unions at some workplace works 

against that whole concept. That is just my view, and maybe you 

can explain to me at some other time, unless you want to explain 

it right now. 

Mr. PEARCE. Well, I can say something about that, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to. The standard is whether or not the unit 

being sought is an appropriate one. An appropriate one meaning 

whether or not there is a community of interest among those employees that are in that bargaining unit. 

It is a traditional standard. It is not an innovative standard. It 

is one that has been part of NLRB jurisprudence for decades. 

If you have a facility, for example, that has carpenters, and a facility that has shipping clerks, there is not going to be a community 

of interest generally between those two—— 

Senator BLUNT. What about the Macy’s store where you recognized the sales force, NLRB recognized the sales force at the fragrance and cosmetics counter and let that group organize even 

though the entire sales force a year and a half earlier had said they 

did not want to organize under the same union. 

What is unique about the sales force at the fragrance and cosmetics counter that gives them a different view of the workplace 

than the shoe department next door, the sales force there that was 

part of not deciding—— 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Chairman. In that particular case, the 

fragrance department people were compensated differently than 

the other salespeople. They had a specialized skill. They had commissions. Their terms and conditions of employment were different 

than the other sales people in the facility. 

Senator BLUNT. Would it have been inappropriate for them to be 

part of the larger bargaining unit 18 months earlier? 

Mr. PEARCE. Well, if the larger bargaining unit—— 

Senator BLUNT. Was salespeople. They were trying to bargain 18 

months earlier to be part of the unionized sales force, was that an 

inappropriate group to be part of that? 

Mr. PEARCE. I would not speculate on whether or not it was an 

appropriate unit because that was not before us for analysis. I do 

not know what other factors would have come into play to make 

a determination as to whether there was a distinction or a commonality that would be useful in that assessment. 

I should point out that in the other case, Bergdorf Goodman and 

Neiman Marcus, we made a determination that the unit that was 

sought was not an appropriate one because it constituted a fractured unit. There was not a sufficient commonality. 

We have cut it both ways under that standard. Both employers 

and unions have used our standard in making effective arguments 

as to why a unit should be expanded or restricted. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

One example is a case called Odwalla, the juice company, where 

the union wanted to have a defined bargaining unit, and the employer arguing Specialty Healthcare says the merchandisers should 

be included in that bargaining unit, and we agreed with them. 
39 

Senator BLUNT. Any other questions, Senator Murray? 

Senator MURRAY. No. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROY BLUNT

Question. Mr. Griffin, how many times in the past has the General Counsel issued 

complaints based on a change he or she wanted the Board to make to existing policy 

or precedent rather than based on current policy and established case law? 

Answer. General Counsels have generally agreed that where the National Labor 

Relations Board has not clearly spoken on a serious issue of national labor policy, 

the General Counsel should exercise prosecutorial discretion in a way that allows 

the unresolved issue to be presented to the Board for decision. Based upon review 

of potential law reform complaint authorizations in about the last 15 years, which 

cover the terms of General Counsels and Acting General Counsels appointed by both 

Democrat and Republican presidents, complaints involving at least twenty different 

subject matters have been authorized under existing law with an urging to consider 

an alternate theory or to give the Board an opportunity to rethink its precedent in 

light of judicial criticism, as well as the views of Board dissenters. 

Question. Given that the General Counsel himself cannot change the Board’s 

standard, how do you justify taking the action you did against McDonald’s? 

Answer. The consolidated complaint against McDonald’s comports with typical actions taken by former General Counsels. Specifically, we are litigating the matter 

under the current joint employer standard. Additionally, following the past practice 

of other General Counsels, we are taking the opportunity to ask the Board to consider changing its current standard by reverting back to the pre-1984 traditional 

joint employer standard, as we did in the Browning Ferris Industries brief, since 

it better reflects the industrial realities of today’s workplace environment. 

Question. Mr. Griffin, since the time you filed the charges against McDonald’s 

based on a new joint employer interpretation, how many other franchisers have 

been charged with Unfair Labor Practices (ULPs) based on the actions of 

franchisees? 

Answer. We did not file charges against McDonald’s. The Agency cannot sua 

sponte initiate unfair labor practice charges against private sector entities, but rather, investigates only those charges that are filed by members of the public. As to 

McDonald’s specifically, after investigating such charges, we found merit to some 

and issued a consolidated complaint. 

Question. Mr. Griffin, the Wage and Hour Division at the Department of Labor 

has been approaching employers about creating—on a voluntary basis—oversight 

agreements with their suppliers with respect to Fair Labor Standards Act compliance. I understand you were asked a few months ago whether you would be inclined 

to consider these types of voluntary agreements as a basis for joint employer status. 

You reportedly said you would. Is that still your position? 

Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify any miscommunication regarding 

this issue. The position that I took then, which remains today, is that Regional offices, under my oversight, will continue to investigate allegations of joint employer 

by considering all evidence. Thus, they could review the language of such agreements, as well as the practices emanating from them, in making decisions related 

to co-determining terms and conditions of employment. All cases are factually distinct and analysis would be performed on a case-by-case basis. 

Question. Mr. Pearce, do you agree or disagree with Mr. Griffin’s assessment? 

Answer. Unlike the General Counsel, the Board is an appellate tribunal that does 

not issue advisory opinions on this kind of question. Instead, it rules on the question 

if and when it is presented in a case that comes before it, based on the evidence 

in the case and the legal arguments made by the parties. I am not aware of any 

case pending before the Board that presents this issue. 

Question. Would either of you consider that to be deceiving well-meaning employers into joint employer status? 

Answer. [Pearce] No. 

Answer. [Griffin]I do not believe that to be deceptive. 

Question. Have either of you had any communications with Wage and Hour Division (WHD) to coordinate on use of this tactic to pull employers together under an 

emerging new joint employer standard? 

Answer. [Pearce] No. 
40 

Answer. [Griffin] I have not engaged in such communications with the Wage and 

Hour Division. 

Question. Mr. Pearce, to what degree does the Board intend to apply a modified 

joint employer standard to even more distant business relationships, such as parts 

suppliers or hired cleaning crews for example? 

Answer. The issue of the joint employer standard is currently before the Board; 

therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment. 

Question. After the ‘‘ambush rule’’ was finalized, both chambers of Congress voted 

to overturn the rule via the Congressional Review Act process. Doesn’t the fact that 

the Congress—the elected body that oversees your Board as well as the law and its 

intent—voted to reverse your action send a strong message to the Board that it has 

overstepped? 

Answer. I take seriously all measures passed by Congress. With respect to interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and its amendments, I follow 

the law established by the Supreme Court regarding how to ascertain congressional 

intent. While this is a substantial body of law, which I will not attempt to summarize here, I believe that the most significant considerations when seeking to ascertain the intent of Congress in enacting the NLRA and its amendments are the statutory language and the legislative history of the respective enactment, in that order. 

Question. In light of the votes in Congress, has the Board given thought to modifying, scaling back, or repealing its rule? 

Answer. The Board is not considering further rulemaking in this area at this time. 

Question. The NLRB has undertaken a restructuring of its field organization over 

the last 3 years. Your budget notes that resources are now better aligned with regional caseload. This result, combined with other efficiencies an agency would hope 

to achieve through a large-scale reorganization, would be expected to yield financial 

savings. However, the agency did not reduce its request for any activity and, in fact, 

increased its request for field investigations. Please describe the goals of the realignment and what, if any efficiencies were achieved? 

Answer. The goals of the Agency’s realignment, both in field offices and headquarters, was to streamline operations, decrease duplication, and take advantage of 

technological advances. In the field, we consolidated Regional offices thereby reducing the number from 32 to 26. In doing so, we decreased the number of Senior Executive Service Regional Directors, as well as redundancies in compliance and office 

management. We also closed the Jacksonville resident office, and are considering 

closing the Des Moines resident office, which saves costs associated with rent. 

In headquarters, we created a Division of Legal Counsel, thereby creating a forum 

for ‘‘one stop shopping’’. Specifically, we consolidated the Special Litigation and Contempt and Compliance Litigation Branches based on the overlap and dovetailing of 

functions. We also moved a Compliance Unit into the Operations-Management Division to better assist field offices with obtaining compliance with decisions and orders. Additionally, we combined our government and legal ethics into one branch 

to ensure a broad and consistent review of overlapping issues, and we centralized 

our FOIA functions, such that all requests and appeals involving both General 

Counsel and Board-side matters are handled by the FOIA Branch, which now is also 

handling FOIA requests initially directed to field offices thereby allowing Board 

agents in the field to better serve the public. 

Additionally, we have consolidated eleven separate legacy case tracking systems 

into an integrated enterprise case management solution. Field offices, as well as 

headquarters’ offices, are now utilizing this same case management system, which 

allows for remote and instantaneous access to documents contained within case 

files. We are also further developing our Internet applications, or ‘‘apps’’, and a unified communication system for easier, more effective, and quicker access to information. 

Question. Your budget requests 20–25 additional field examiners and attorneys, 

but does not discuss why the increase is necessary or exactly what they will do. Noting that overall caseload from the recent past is fairly stable and unfair labor practice cases have been down, why is an increase of this size needed—especially after 

a restructuring to improve caseload efficiency? 

Answer. The Agency protects the rights of tens of millions of private sector workers and protects millions of employers from workplace unrest thereby helping to ensure economic stability within this country. The vast majority of the work and public interface of the Agency occurs in the field offices. It is our field attorneys and 

field examiners that investigate charges, settle and litigate cases, engage in educational outreach to private business owners and their workers, and conduct secretballot elections. As I noted previously, we cannot initiate case processing until there 

is a filing by a member of the public and each case is factually distinct. Thus, in 

addition to not having control over the number of cases filed, we count each case 
41 

as one unit, whether the matter involves an election involving 45,000 nurses, such 

as a recent California case, a lockout of over 200 workers, such as a recent Memphis 

case, or the discharge of one individual. Hence, the time and effort needed to handle 

each case from filing to closing cannot accurately be reflected in a caseload statistic. 

Additionally, as noted in my opening statement, there are a significant number of 

Agency employees who are retirement-eligible, and effectuating limited critical hiring of new board agents to absorb their institutional knowledge is crucial for succession planning, productivity, and our overall service to the public. 

Question. Mr. Griffin, I would like to ask you about another case called SCA Tissue, which is currently under appeal pending in your office and deals with ‘‘minority 

unionism.’’ The NLRB and General Counsels have dispensed with related questions 

relatively quickly in the past given the clarity of the National Labor Relations Act 

and the associated legislative history on the issue of majority rule within a bargaining unit. Why has it sat on your desk for about 8 months? Your regional office 

dispensed with it quickly and unequivocally. Does your extended review or delay 

imply that you are considering yet another major departure from precedent and 

law? 

Answer. I would like to thank you for your appreciation of the regional handling 

of the SCA Tissue case. My Office has recently issued a letter denying the appeal. 

Question. Mr. Pearce, is the Board considering changing its previous positions on 

this issue through this case as well? 

Answer. I am not aware of any case pending before the Board that presents this 

issue. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

Question. Please provide answers to each of the following questions, with supporting data, and please specify the date on which you are calculating the data to 

answer the questions. 

Answer. The date used to calculate the data in all responses is June 3, 2015. Supporting data is included in the following table: 

Region Case Number Unit Date Filed Election Held Date 

No. of Days 

Filing to 

Election 

Election 

Agreement 

Issued 

Direction of 

Election 

Issued 

A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 4/24/2015 ....................

1 01–RC–150106 .......................... B 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 4/24/2015 ....................

34 01–RD–150609 .......................... A 4/22/2015 5/11/2015 19 4/29/2015 ....................

2 02–RC–150235 .......................... A 4/16/2015 5/14/2015 28 4/30/2015 ....................

2 02–RC–150815 .......................... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 5/12/2015 ....................

2 02–RC–151412 .......................... A 5/1/2015 5/27/2015 26 5/20/2015 ....................

2 02–RC–152009 .......................... A 5/11/2015 5/27/2015 16 5/20/2015 ....................

3 03–RC–150147 .......................... A 4/15/2015 5/11/2015 26 4/22/2015 ....................

3 03–RC–150811 .......................... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 4/30/2015 ....................

3 03–RC–151272 .......................... A 4/30/2015 5/12/2015 12 5/4/2015 ....................

3 03–RC–151818 .......................... A 5/8/2015 5/28/2015 20 5/15/2015 ....................

4 04–RC–150059 .......................... A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 4/21/2015 ....................

4 04–RC–150177 .......................... A 4/16/2015 5/7/2015 21 4/23/2015 ....................

4 04–RC–150307 .......................... A 4/17/2015 5/8/2015 21 4/24/2015 ....................

4 04–RC–150728 .......................... A 4/23/2015 5/20/2015 27 4/29/2015 ....................

4 04–RC–150790 .......................... A 4/24/2015 5/20/2015 26 5/1/2015 ....................

4 04–RC–150899 .......................... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 4/30/2015 ....................

4 04–RC–151199 .......................... A 4/30/2015 5/28/2015 28 5/7/2015 ....................

4 04–RC–151419 .......................... A 5/4/2015 5/14/2015 10 5/7/2015 ....................

5 05–RC–150035 .......................... A 4/14/2015 5/13/2015 29 4/20/2015 ....................

5 05–RC–150230 .......................... A 4/16/2015 5/7/2015 21 4/23/2015 ....................

5 05–RC–150645 .......................... A 4/22/2015 5/6/2015 14 4/30/2015 ....................

5 05–RC–150722 .......................... A 4/22/2015 5/14/2015 22 5/1/2015 ....................

5 05–RC–151117 .......................... A 4/28/2015 5/29/2015 31 5/7/2015 ....................

5 05–RC–151753 .......................... A 5/7/2015 5/21/2015 14 5/15/2015 ....................

6 06–RC–150296 .......................... A 4/17/2015 5/15/2015 28 4/24/2015 ....................

6 06–RC–150368 .......................... A 4/20/2015 5/13/2015 23 4/24/2015 ....................

6 06–RC–151386 .......................... A 5/1/2015 5/21/2015 20 5/8/2015 ....................

7 07–RC–150061 .......................... A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 4/21/2015 ....................

7 07–RC–150097 .......................... A 4/14/2015 5/14/2015 30 .................... 5/6/2015 

7 07–RC–150286 .......................... A 4/17/2015 5/14/2015 27 4/24/2015 ....................

7 07–RC–150703 .......................... A 4/23/2015 5/15/2015 22 5/6/2015 ....................
42 

Region Case Number Unit Date Filed Election Held 

Date 

No. of Days 

Filing to 

Election 

Election 

Agreement 

Issued 

Direction of 

Election 

Issued 

8 08–RC–150027 .......................... A 4/14/2015 4/28/2015 14 4/22/2015 ....................

8 08–RC–150541 .......................... A 4/21/2015 5/15/2015 24 5/1/2015 ....................

8 08–RC–150682 .......................... A 4/23/2015 5/15/2015 22 5/1/2015 ....................

9 09–RC–150405 .......................... A 4/20/2015 5/12/2015 22 4/28/2015 ....................

9 09–RC–150613 .......................... A 4/22/2015 5/20/2015 28 4/28/2015 ....................

9 09–RC–151309 .......................... A 4/30/2015 5/19/2015 19 5/6/2015 ....................

10 10–RC–150042 .......................... A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 4/22/2015 ....................

11 10–RC–150582 .......................... A 4/22/2015 5/26/2015 34 4/29/2015 ....................

11 10–RC–150835 .......................... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 5/1/2015 ....................

11 10–RC–151143 .......................... A 4/29/2015 5/21/2015 22 5/6/2015 ....................

12 12–RC–151061 .......................... A 4/28/2015 5/21/2015 23 5/6/2015 ....................

13 13–RC–150912 .......................... A 4/27/2015 5/12/2015 15 5/4/2015 ....................

13 13–RC–150917 .......................... A 4/27/2015 5/27/2015 30 5/4/2015 ....................

13 13–UD–151151 .......................... A 4/29/2015 5/28/2015 29 .................... 5/13/2015 

17 14–RC–150243 .......................... A 4/16/2015 5/7/2015 21 4/24/2015 ....................

14 14–RC–151115 .......................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 5/6/2015 ....................

14 14–RC–151350 .......................... A 5/1/2015 5/21/2015 20 5/8/2015 ....................

14 14–RC–151446 .......................... A 5/4/2015 5/26/2015 22 .................... 5/18/2015 

26 15–RC–150292 .......................... A 4/16/2015 5/14/2015 28 4/24/2015 ....................

15 15–RC–150893 .......................... A 4/27/2015 5/28/2015 31 5/6/2015 ....................

15 15–RC–151118 .......................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 5/6/2015 ....................

16 16–RC–150207 .......................... A 4/16/2015 5/7/2015 21 4/24/2015 ....................

16 16–RC–150508 .......................... A 4/21/2015 5/19/2015 28 4/28/2015 ....................

16 16–RC–150834 .......................... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 5/1/2015 ....................

16 16–RC–151211 .......................... A 4/30/2015 5/27/2015 27 5/7/2015 ....................

16 16–RC–151317 .......................... A 4/30/2015 5/19/2015 19 5/8/2015 ....................

A 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 5/4/2015 ....................

B 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 5/4/2015 ....................

18 18–RC–150800 .......................... C 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 5/4/2015 ....................

18 18–RC–150846 .......................... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 5/1/2015 ....................

18 18–RC–151161 .......................... A 4/29/2015 5/27/2015 28 5/6/2015 ....................

18 18–RC–151725 .......................... A 5/6/2015 5/20/2015 14 5/11/2015 ....................

18 18–UD–151274 .......................... A 4/30/2015 5/27/2015 27 5/8/2015 ....................

19 19–RC–150145 .......................... A 4/14/2015 5/14/2015 30 4/23/2015 ....................

36 19–RC–150163 .......................... A 4/15/2015 5/15/2015 30 4/23/2015 ....................

19 19–RC–150189 .......................... A 4/15/2015 5/12/2015 27 4/23/2015 ....................

A 4/21/2015 5/14/2015 23 4/30/2015 ....................

19 19–RC–150515 .......................... B 4/21/2015 5/14/2015 23 4/30/2015 ....................

19 19–RC–150590 .......................... A 4/21/2015 5/19/2015 28 .................... 5/6/2015 

19 19–RC–150769 .......................... A 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 4/30/2015 ....................

19 19–RC–151030 .......................... A 4/27/2015 5/8/2015 11 5/4/2015 ....................

36 19–RC–151686 .......................... A 5/6/2015 5/27/2015 21 5/12/2015 ....................

19 19–RD–151173 .......................... A 4/29/2015 5/20/2015 21 5/5/2015 ....................

20 20–RC–150652 .......................... A 4/22/2015 5/11/2015 19 4/30/2015 ....................

21 21–RC–150214 .......................... A 4/15/2015 5/8/2015 23 .................... 5/4/2015 

21 21–RC–150242 .......................... A 4/15/2015 5/8/2015 23 .................... 5/4/2015 

21 21–RC–150749 .......................... A 4/23/2015 5/27/2015 34 .................... 5/20/2015 

21 21–RC–150874 .......................... A 4/24/2015 5/15/2015 21 4/30/2015 ....................

21 21–RC–150980 .......................... A 4/27/2015 5/21/2015 24 5/4/2015 ....................

22 22–RC–150289 .......................... A 4/17/2015 4/27/2015 10 4/21/2015 ....................

22 22–RC–150630 .......................... A 4/22/2015 5/15/2015 23 4/30/2015 ....................

22 22–RC–150700 .......................... A 4/23/2015 5/19/2015 26 5/7/2015 ....................

22 22–RC–151333 .......................... A 5/1/2015 5/27/2015 26 5/11/2015 ....................

22 22–RC–151421 .......................... A 5/1/2015 5/22/2015 21 5/12/2015 ....................

25 25–RC–150488 .......................... A 4/21/2015 5/20/2015 29 4/27/2015 ....................

33 25–RC–150678 .......................... A 4/22/2015 5/13/2015 21 4/30/2015 ....................

28 28–RC–150167 .......................... A 4/15/2015 5/8/2015 23 4/22/2015 ....................

28 28–RC–150168 .......................... A 4/15/2015 5/2/2015 17 4/24/2015 ....................

28 28–RC–150855 .......................... A 4/24/2015 5/15/2015 21 5/1/2015 ....................

28 28–RC–151070 .......................... A 4/28/2015 5/14/2015 16 5/6/2015 ....................

28 28–RC–152225 .......................... A 5/14/2015 5/28/2015 14 5/20/2015 ....................

29 29–RC–150499 .......................... A 4/21/2015 5/6/2015 15 4/28/2015 ....................

29 29–RC–150622 .......................... A 4/22/2015 5/14/2015 22 4/30/2015 ....................

29 29–RC–150681 .......................... A 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 4/29/2015 ....................

29 29–RC–151196 .......................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 5/8/2015 ....................
43 

Region Case Number Unit Date Filed Election Held 

Date 

No. of Days 

Filing to 

Election 

Election 

Agreement 

Issued 

Direction of 

Election 

Issued 

29 29–RC–151310 .......................... A 4/30/2015 5/20/2015 20 5/8/2015 ....................

31 31–RC–150220 .......................... A 4/15/2015 5/20/2015 35 4/23/2015 ....................

31 31–RC–150568 .......................... A 4/21/2015 5/22/2015 31 4/29/2015 ....................

32 32–RC–150090 .......................... A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 4/20/2015 ....................

32 32–RC–150360 .......................... A 4/17/2015 5/19/2015 32 4/24/2015 ....................

32 32–RC–150861 .......................... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 5/1/2015 ....................

32 32–RC–151435 .......................... A 5/1/2015 5/27/2015 26 5/11/2015 ....................

Question. How many election petitions filed on or after April 14, 2015, have resulted in stipulated elections? 

Answer. 95 

Question. What percentage of all elections that have occurred based on petitions 

filed on or after April 14, 2015, has resulted in stipulated elections? 

Answer. 93.14 percent 

Question. How many election petitions filed on or after April 14, 2015, have resulted in directed elections? 

Answer. 7 

Question. What percentage of all elections that have occurred based on petitions 

filed on or after April 14, 2015, has resulted in directed elections? 

Answer. 6.8 percent 

Question. For all of those directed elections that have occurred or been scheduled 

based on petitions filed on or after April 14, 2015, please list the date the petition 

was filed and the date the election occurred, or is scheduled to occur. 

Answer. Please see the following table: 

ELECTIONS CONDUCTED 

Region Case Number Unit Date Filed Election Held 

Date 

No. of Days 

Filing to 

Election 

Direction of 

Election 

Issued 

7 07–RC–150097 ................................................... A 4/14/2015 5/14/2015 30 5/6/2015 

13 13–UD–151151 ................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/28/2015 29 5/13/2015 

14 14–RC–151446 ................................................... A 5/4/2015 5/26/2015 22 5/18/2015 

19 19–RC–150590 ................................................... A 4/21/2015 5/19/2015 28 5/6/2015 

21 21–RC–150214 ................................................... A 4/15/2015 5/8/2015 23 5/4/2015 

21 21–RC–150242 ................................................... A 4/15/2015 5/8/2015 23 5/4/2015 

21 21–RC–150749 ................................................... A 4/23/2015 5/27/2015 34 5/20/2015 

UPCOMING ELECTIONS 

Region Case Number Unit Date Filed Election Date 

No. of Days 

Filing to 

Election 

6 06–RC–152049 ............................................................................ A 5/12/2015 6/4/2015 23 

5 05–RC–150123 ............................................................................ A 4/14/2015 6/5/2015 52 

4 04–RC–152582 ............................................................................ A 5/20/2015 6/9/2015 20 

36 19–RC–150979 ............................................................................ A 4/27/2015 6/10/2015 44 

4 04–RC–152289 ............................................................................ A 5/14/2015 6/14/2015 31 

Question. For all of those stipulated elections that have occurred or been scheduled based on petitions filed on or after April 14, 2015, please list the date the petition was filed and the date the election occurred, or is scheduled to occur. 

Answer. Please see the following table: 

ELECTIONS CONDUCTED 

Region Case Number Unit Date Filed Election Held Date No. of Days Filing 

to Election 

A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 

1 01–RC–150106 ...................................................... B 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 

34 01–RD–150609 ...................................................... A 4/22/2015 5/11/2015 19 

2 02–RC–150235 ...................................................... A 4/16/2015 5/14/2015 28 
44 

ELECTIONS CONDUCTED—Continued 

Region Case Number Unit Date Filed Election Held Date No. of Days Filing 

to Election 

2 02–RC–150815 ...................................................... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 

2 02–RC–151412 ...................................................... A 5/1/2015 5/27/2015 26 

2 02–RC–152009 ...................................................... A 5/11/2015 5/27/2015 16 

3 03–RC–150147 ...................................................... A 4/15/2015 5/11/2015 26 

3 03–RC–150811 ...................................................... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 

3 03–RC–151272 ...................................................... A 4/30/2015 5/12/2015 12 

3 03–RC–151818 ...................................................... A 5/8/2015 5/28/2015 20 

4 04–RC–150059 ...................................................... A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 

4 04–RC–150177 ...................................................... A 4/16/2015 5/7/2015 21 

4 04–RC–150307 ...................................................... A 4/17/2015 5/8/2015 21 

4 04–RC–150728 ...................................................... A 4/23/2015 5/20/2015 27 

4 04–RC–150790 ...................................................... A 4/24/2015 5/20/2015 26 

4 04–RC–150899 ...................................................... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 

4 04–RC–151199 ...................................................... A 4/30/2015 5/28/2015 28 

4 04–RC–151419 ...................................................... A 5/4/2015 5/14/2015 10 

5 05–RC–150035 ...................................................... A 4/14/2015 5/13/2015 29 

5 05–RC–150230 ...................................................... A 4/16/2015 5/7/2015 21 

5 05–RC–150645 ...................................................... A 4/22/2015 5/6/2015 14 

5 05–RC–150722 ...................................................... A 4/22/2015 5/14/2015 22 

5 05–RC–151117 ...................................................... A 4/28/2015 5/29/2015 31 

5 05–RC–151753 ...................................................... A 5/7/2015 5/21/2015 14 

6 06–RC–150296 ...................................................... A 4/17/2015 5/15/2015 28 

6 06–RC–150368 ...................................................... A 4/20/2015 5/13/2015 23 

6 06–RC–151386 ...................................................... A 5/1/2015 5/21/2015 20 

7 07–RC–150061 ...................................................... A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 

7 07–RC–150286 ...................................................... A 4/17/2015 5/14/2015 27 

7 07–RC–150703 ...................................................... A 4/23/2015 5/15/2015 22 

8 08–RC–150027 ...................................................... A 4/14/2015 4/28/2015 14 

8 08–RC–150541 ...................................................... A 4/21/2015 5/15/2015 24 

8 08–RC–150682 ...................................................... A 4/23/2015 5/15/2015 22 

9 09–RC–150405 ...................................................... A 4/20/2015 5/12/2015 22 

9 09–RC–150613 ...................................................... A 4/22/2015 5/20/2015 28 

9 09–RC–151309 ...................................................... A 4/30/2015 5/19/2015 19 

10 10–RC–150042 ...................................................... A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 

11 10–RC–150582 ...................................................... A 4/22/2015 5/26/2015 34 

11 10–RC–150835 ...................................................... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 

11 10–RC–151143 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/21/2015 22 

12 12–RC–151061 ...................................................... A 4/28/2015 5/21/2015 23 

13 13–RC–150912 ...................................................... A 4/27/2015 5/12/2015 15 

13 13–RC–150917 ...................................................... A 4/27/2015 5/27/2015 30 

17 14–RC–150243 ...................................................... A 4/16/2015 5/7/2015 21 

14 14–RC–151115 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

14 14–RC–151350 ...................................................... A 5/1/2015 5/21/2015 20 

26 15–RC–150292 ...................................................... A 4/16/2015 5/14/2015 28 

15 15–RC–150893 ...................................................... A 4/27/2015 5/28/2015 31 

15 15–RC–151118 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

16 16–RC–150207 ...................................................... A 4/16/2015 5/7/2015 21 

16 16–RC–150508 ...................................................... A 4/21/2015 5/19/2015 28 

16 16–RC–150834 ...................................................... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 

16 16–RC–151211 ...................................................... A 4/30/2015 5/27/2015 27 

16 16–RC–151317 ...................................................... A 4/30/2015 5/19/2015 19 

A 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 

B 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 

18 18–RC–150800 ...................................................... C 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 

18 18–RC–150846 ...................................................... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 

18 18–RC–151161 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/27/2015 28 

18 18–RC–151725 ...................................................... A 5/6/2015 5/20/2015 14 

18 18–UD–151274 ...................................................... A 4/30/2015 5/27/2015 27 

19 19–RC–150145 ...................................................... A 4/14/2015 5/14/2015 30 

36 19–RC–150163 ...................................................... A 4/15/2015 5/15/2015 30 

19 19–RC–150189 ...................................................... A 4/15/2015 5/12/2015 27 

A 4/21/2015 5/14/2015 23 

19 19–RC–150515 ...................................................... B 4/21/2015 5/14/2015 23 
45 

ELECTIONS CONDUCTED—Continued 

Region Case Number Unit Date Filed Election Held Date No. of Days Filing 

to Election 

19 19–RC–150769 ...................................................... A 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 

19 19–RC–151030 ...................................................... A 4/27/2015 5/8/2015 11 

36 19–RC–151686 ...................................................... A 5/6/2015 5/27/2015 21 

19 19–RD–151173 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/20/2015 21 

20 20–RC–150652 ...................................................... A 4/22/2015 5/11/2015 19 

21 21–RC–150874 ...................................................... A 4/24/2015 5/15/2015 21 

21 21–RC–150980 ...................................................... A 4/27/2015 5/21/2015 24 

22 22–RC–150289 ...................................................... A 4/17/2015 4/27/2015 10 

22 22–RC–150630 ...................................................... A 4/22/2015 5/15/2015 23 

22 22–RC–150700 ...................................................... A 4/23/2015 5/19/2015 26 

22 22–RC–151333 ...................................................... A 5/1/2015 5/27/2015 26 

22 22–RC–151421 ...................................................... A 5/1/2015 5/22/2015 21 

25 25–RC–150488 ...................................................... A 4/21/2015 5/20/2015 29 

33 25–RC–150678 ...................................................... A 4/22/2015 5/13/2015 21 

28 28–RC–150167 ...................................................... A 4/15/2015 5/8/2015 23 

28 28–RC–150168 ...................................................... A 4/15/2015 5/2/2015 17 

28 28–RC–150855 ...................................................... A 4/24/2015 5/15/2015 21 

28 28–RC–151070 ...................................................... A 4/28/2015 5/14/2015 16 

28 28–RC–152225 ...................................................... A 5/14/2015 5/28/2015 14 

29 29–RC–150499 ...................................................... A 4/21/2015 5/6/2015 15 

29 29–RC–150622 ...................................................... A 4/22/2015 5/14/2015 22 

29 29–RC–150681 ...................................................... A 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 

29 29–RC–151196 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

29 29–RC–151310 ...................................................... A 4/30/2015 5/20/2015 20 

31 31–RC–150220 ...................................................... A 4/15/2015 5/20/2015 35 

31 31–RC–150568 ...................................................... A 4/21/2015 5/22/2015 31 

32 32–RC–150090 ...................................................... A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 

32 32–RC–150360 ...................................................... A 4/17/2015 5/19/2015 32 

32 32–RC–150861 ...................................................... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 

32 32–RC–151435 ...................................................... A 5/1/2015 5/27/2015 26 

UPCOMING ELECTIONS/RESULT DATA PENDING PROCESSING 

Region Case Number Unit Date Filed Election Held Date No. of Days Filing 

to Election 

1 01–RC–150713 ...................................................... A 4/23/2015 5/28/2015 35 

1 01–RC–150809 ...................................................... A 4/24/2015 5/22/2015 28 

1 01–RC–151218 ...................................................... A 4/30/2015 5/21/2015 21 

1 01–RC–151620 ...................................................... A 5/5/2015 5/29/2015 24 

1 01–RC–151899 ...................................................... A 5/8/2015 6/2/2015 25 

1 01–RC–152774 ...................................................... A 5/21/2015 6/18/2015 28 

2 02–RC–150504 ...................................................... A 4/21/2015 5/19/2015 28 

2 02–RC–151248 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

2 02–RC–151250 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

2 02–RC–151254 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

2 02–RC–151256 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

2 02–RC–151260 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

2 02–RC–151262 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

2 02–RC–151264 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

2 02–RC–151269 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

2 02–RC–151275 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

2 02–RC–151277 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

2 02–RC–151280 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

2 02–RC–151283 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

2 02–RC–151287 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

2 02–RC–151289 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 

2 02–RC–151509 ...................................................... A 5/4/2015 5/29/2015 25 

2 02–RC–151774 ...................................................... A 5/7/2015 6/10/2015 34 

2 02–RC–151873 ...................................................... A 5/8/2015 6/11/2015 34 

2 02–RC–151977 ...................................................... A 5/11/2015 6/5/2015 25 

2 02–RC–152260 ...................................................... A 5/14/2015 6/9/2015 26 

2 02–RC–152307 ...................................................... A 5/14/2015 5/29/2015 15 
46 

UPCOMING ELECTIONS/RESULT DATA PENDING PROCESSING—Continued 

Region Case Number Unit Date Filed Election Held Date No. of Days Filing 

to Election 

2 02–RC–152311 ...................................................... A 5/14/2015 5/29/2015 15 

2 02–RC–152315 ...................................................... A 5/14/2015 5/29/2015 15 

2 02–RC–152324 ...................................................... A 5/14/2015 5/29/2015 15 

2 02–RC–152328 ...................................................... A 5/14/2015 5/29/2015 15 

2 02–RC–152794 ...................................................... A 5/22/2015 6/11/2015 20 

2 02–RC–152988 ...................................................... A 5/27/2015 6/16/2015 20 

2 02–RC–153140 ...................................................... A 5/29/2015 6/18/2015 20 

3 03–RC–151634 ...................................................... A 5/6/2015 6/3/2015 28 

3 03–RC–151734 ...................................................... A 5/7/2015 6/10/2015 34 

3 03–RC–151849 ...................................................... A 5/8/2015 6/3/2015 26 

4 04–RC–150782 ...................................................... A 4/23/2015 5/18/2015 25 

4 04–RC–151815 ...................................................... A 5/8/2015 6/5/2015 28 

4 04–RC–152380 ...................................................... A 5/15/2015 6/12/2015 28 

4 04–RC–152418 ...................................................... A 5/18/2015 6/2/2015 15 

4 04–RC–152491 ...................................................... A 5/18/2015 6/12/2015 25 

5 05–RC–151107 ...................................................... A 4/27/2015 5/15/2015 18 

5 05–RC–151468 ...................................................... A 5/4/2015 5/26/2015 22 

5 05–RC–151470 ...................................................... A 5/4/2015 5/26/2015 22 

5 05–RC–151866 ...................................................... A 5/8/2015 5/20/2015 12 

5 05–RC–151933 ...................................................... A 5/8/2015 6/10/2015 33 

5 05–RC–151975 ...................................................... A 5/11/2015 6/15/2015 35 

5 05–RC–152880 ...................................................... A 5/26/2015 6/19/2015 24 

6 06–RC–151701 ...................................................... A 5/7/2015 6/5/2015 29 

6 06–RC–152112 ...................................................... A 5/13/2015 6/5/2015 23 

6 06–RC–152299 ...................................................... A 5/15/2015 6/3/2015 19 

6 06–RC–152300 ...................................................... A 5/15/2015 6/3/2015 19 

7 07–RC–151406 ...................................................... A 5/4/2015 6/5/2015 32 

7 07–RC–151697 ...................................................... A 5/6/2015 6/11/2015 36 

7 07–RC–152676 ...................................................... A 5/21/2015 6/19/2015 29 

8 08–RC–152337 ...................................................... A 5/15/2015 6/11/2015 27 

8 08–RC–152489 ...................................................... A 5/18/2015 6/16/2015 29 

9 09–RC–151181 ...................................................... A 4/29/2015 6/4/2015 36 

9 09–RC–152759 ...................................................... A 5/21/2015 6/18/2015 28 

9 09–RD–152544 ...................................................... A 5/19/2015 6/11/2015 23 

9 09–RD–152899 ...................................................... A 5/26/2015 6/17/2015 22 

11 10–RC–150828 ...................................................... A 4/24/2015 6/1/2015 38 

10 10–RC–151812 ...................................................... A 5/8/2015 6/5/2015 28 

26NAS 10–RC–151941 ...................................................... A 5/11/2015 6/11/2015 31 

10 10–RC–151942 ...................................................... A 5/11/2015 6/10/2015 30 

11 10–RC–151954 ...................................................... A 5/11/2015 6/18/2015 38 

10 10–RC–152420 ...................................................... A 5/18/2015 6/14/2015 27 

11 10–RC–152911 ...................................................... A 5/26/2015 6/24/2015 29 

10 10–RC–152954 ...................................................... A 5/26/2015 6/24/2015 29 

11 10–RC–153364 ...................................................... A 6/1/2015 6/18/2015 17 

12 12–RC–151666 ...................................................... A 5/6/2015 6/5/2015 30 

24 12–RC–152435 ...................................................... A 5/18/2015 6/17/2015 30 

12 12–RD–152062 ...................................................... A 5/12/2015 6/2/2015 21 

12 12–RD–152150 ...................................................... A 5/13/2015 6/11/2015 29 

13 13–RC–151747 ...................................................... A 5/7/2015 6/3/2015 27 

13 13–RC–151943 ...................................................... A 5/11/2015 6/9/2015 29 

13 13–RC–152029 ...................................................... A 5/12/2015 6/4/2015 23 

13 13–RC–152584 ...................................................... A 5/20/2015 6/11/2015 22 

13 13–RC–152961 ...................................................... A 5/27/2015 6/9/2015 13 

17 14–RC–151485 ...................................................... A 5/4/2015 5/26/2015 22 

17 14–RC–151535 ...................................................... A 5/5/2015 5/28/2015 23 

17 14–RC–152208 ...................................................... A 5/14/2015 6/9/2015 26 

14 14–RC–152209 ...................................................... A 5/14/2015 6/12/2015 29 

14 14–RC–152597 ...................................................... A 5/20/2015 6/10/2015 21 

15 15–RC–151772 ...................................................... A 5/7/2015 5/27/2015 20 

16 16–RC–150545 ...................................................... A 4/21/2015 5/12/2015 21 

16 16–RC–151853 ...................................................... A 5/8/2015 6/4/2015 27 

16 16–RC–152504 ...................................................... A 5/18/2015 6/10/2015 23 

16 16–RC–152831 ...................................................... A 5/22/2015 6/17/2015 26 
47 

UPCOMING ELECTIONS/RESULT DATA PENDING PROCESSING—Continued 

Region Case Number Unit Date Filed Election Held Date No. of Days Filing 

to Election 

30 18–RC–152189 ...................................................... A 5/13/2015 6/5/2015 23 

18 18–RC–152558 ...................................................... A 5/19/2015 6/9/2015 21 

30 18–RD–152017 ...................................................... A 5/12/2015 6/3/2015 22 

36 19–RC–151976 ...................................................... A 5/11/2015 6/2/2015 22 

19 19–RC–152006 ...................................................... A 5/11/2015 6/8/2015 28 

19 19–RC–152056 ...................................................... A 5/11/2015 6/12/2015 32 

19 19–RC–152188 ...................................................... A 5/12/2015 6/3/2015 22 

19 19–RC–153166 ...................................................... A 5/28/2015 6/9/2015 12 

19 19–RM–152841 ..................................................... A 5/21/2015 6/17/2015 27 

37 20–RC–151684 ...................................................... A 5/6/2015 5/27/2015 21 

20 20–RC–151884 ...................................................... A 5/8/2015 6/2/2015 25 

37 20–RC–152268 ...................................................... A 5/14/2015 6/13/2015 30 

20 20–RC–152357 ...................................................... A 5/15/2015 6/4/2015 20 

20 20–RC–152837 ...................................................... A 5/22/2015 6/23/2015 32 

21 21–RC–151499 ...................................................... A 5/4/2015 5/26/2015 22 

21 21–RC–151906 ...................................................... A 5/8/2015 6/12/2015 35 

21 21–RC–152158 ...................................................... A 5/13/2015 6/19/2015 37 

21 21–RC–152279 ...................................................... A 5/14/2015 6/5/2015 22 

21 21–RC–152782 ...................................................... A 5/21/2015 6/18/2015 28 

22 22–RC–152085 ...................................................... A 5/13/2015 6/1/2015 19 

22 22–RC–152243 ...................................................... A 5/13/2015 6/12/2015 30 

22 22–RC–152670 ...................................................... A 5/20/2015 6/18/2015 29 

22 22–RC–152994 ...................................................... A 5/27/2015 6/5/2015 9 

22 22–RC–153040 ...................................................... A 5/27/2015 6/19/2015 23 

22 22–RD–152244 ...................................................... A 5/14/2015 6/5/2015 22 

25 25–RC–152157 ...................................................... A 5/13/2015 6/10/2015 28 

25 25–RC–152622 ...................................................... A 5/20/2015 6/18/2015 29 

25 25–RC–152894 ...................................................... A 5/26/2015 6/19/2015 24 

27 27–RC–151076 ...................................................... A 4/28/2015 5/20/2015 22 

27 27–RC–152884 ...................................................... A 5/26/2015 6/16/2015 21 

28 28–RC–152165 ...................................................... A 5/13/2015 6/3/2015 21 

28 28–RC–152340 ...................................................... A 5/15/2015 6/6/2015 22 

29 29–RC–152044 ...................................................... A 5/12/2015 6/3/2015 22 

29 29–RC–152688 ...................................................... A 5/21/2015 6/17/2015 27 

29 29–RC–152739 ...................................................... A 5/21/2015 6/5/2015 15 

29 29–RC–152972 ...................................................... A 5/27/2015 6/19/2015 23 

29 29–RD–152140 ...................................................... A 5/13/2015 6/10/2015 28 

29 29–UD–152042 ...................................................... A 5/12/2015 6/3/2015 22 

31 31–RC–151985 ...................................................... A 5/11/2015 6/8/2015 28 

31 31–RC–152471 ...................................................... A 5/18/2015 6/10/2015 23 

32 32–RC–152365 ...................................................... A 5/15/2015 6/16/2015 32 

32 32–RC–152621 ...................................................... A 5/20/2015 6/11/2015 22 

32 32–RC–152968 ...................................................... A 5/26/2015 6/17/2015 22 

32 32–RD–152636 ...................................................... A 5/20/2015 6/17/2015 28 

Question. Please provide election result data for all of the elections that have occurred based on petitions filed on or after April 14, 2015. 

Answer. Please see the following table: 

Region Case Number Unit Date Filed Election Held 

Date 

No. of 

Days 

Filing to 

Election 

Election 

Approved 

Direction of 

Election Issued Election Result 

A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 4/24/2015 ....................

1 01–RC–150106 .......... B 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 4/24/2015 ....................

34 01–RD–150609 .......... A 4/22/2015 5/11/2015 19 4/29/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

2 02–RC–150235 .......... A 4/16/2015 5/14/2015 28 4/30/2015 ....................

2 02–RC–150815 .......... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 5/12/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

2 02–RC–151412 .......... A 5/1/2015 5/27/2015 26 5/20/2015 ....................

2 02–RC–152009 .......... A 5/11/2015 5/27/2015 16 5/20/2015 ....................

3 03–RC–150147 .......... A 4/15/2015 5/11/2015 26 4/22/2015 ....................

3 03–RC–150811 .......... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 4/30/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

3 03–RC–151272 .......... A 4/30/2015 5/12/2015 12 5/4/2015 ....................

3 03–RC–151818 .......... A 5/8/2015 5/28/2015 20 5/15/2015 ....................

4 04–RC–150059 .......... A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 4/21/2015 .................... Certification of Results 
48 

Region Case Number Unit Date Filed Election Held 

Date 

No. of 

Days 

Filing to 

Election 

Election 

Approved 

Direction of 

Election Issued Election Result 

4 04–RC–150177 .......... A 4/16/2015 5/7/2015 21 4/23/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

4 04–RC–150307 .......... A 4/17/2015 5/8/2015 21 4/24/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

4 04–RC–150728 .......... A 4/23/2015 5/20/2015 27 4/29/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

4 04–RC–150790 .......... A 4/24/2015 5/20/2015 26 5/1/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

4 04–RC–150899 .......... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 4/30/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

4 04–RC–151199 .......... A 4/30/2015 5/28/2015 28 5/7/2015 ....................

4 04–RC–151419 .......... A 5/4/2015 5/14/2015 10 5/7/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

5 05–RC–150035 .......... A 4/14/2015 5/13/2015 29 4/20/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

5 05–RC–150230 .......... A 4/16/2015 5/7/2015 21 4/23/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

5 05–RC–150645 .......... A 4/22/2015 5/6/2015 14 4/30/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

5 05–RC–150722 .......... A 4/22/2015 5/14/2015 22 5/1/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

5 05–RC–151117 .......... A 4/28/2015 5/29/2015 31 5/7/2015 ....................

5 05–RC–151753 .......... A 5/7/2015 5/21/2015 14 5/15/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

6 06–RC–150296 .......... A 4/17/2015 5/15/2015 28 4/24/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

6 06–RC–150368 .......... A 4/20/2015 5/13/2015 23 4/24/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

6 06–RC–151386 .......... A 5/1/2015 5/21/2015 20 5/8/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

7 07–RC–150061 .......... A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 4/21/2015 ....................

7 07–RC–150097 .......... A 4/14/2015 5/14/2015 30 .................... 5/6/2015 

7 07–RC–150286 .......... A 4/17/2015 5/14/2015 27 4/24/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

7 07–RC–150703 .......... A 4/23/2015 5/15/2015 22 5/6/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

8 08–RC–150027 .......... A 4/14/2015 4/28/2015 14 4/22/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

8 08–RC–150541 .......... A 4/21/2015 5/15/2015 24 5/1/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

8 08–RC–150682 .......... A 4/23/2015 5/15/2015 22 5/1/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

9 09–RC–150405 .......... A 4/20/2015 5/12/2015 22 4/28/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

9 09–RC–150613 .......... A 4/22/2015 5/20/2015 28 4/28/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

9 09–RC–151309 .......... A 4/30/2015 5/19/2015 19 5/6/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

10 10–RC–150042 .......... A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 4/22/2015 ....................

11 10–RC–150582 .......... A 4/22/2015 5/26/2015 34 4/29/2015 ....................

11 10–RC–150835 .......... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 5/1/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

11 10–RC–151143 .......... A 4/29/2015 5/21/2015 22 5/6/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

12 12–RC–151061 .......... A 4/28/2015 5/21/2015 23 5/6/2015 ....................

13 13–RC–150912 .......... A 4/27/2015 5/12/2015 15 5/4/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

13 13–RC–150917 .......... A 4/27/2015 5/27/2015 30 5/4/2015 ....................

13 13–UD–151151 .......... A 4/29/2015 5/28/2015 29 .................... 5/13/2015 

17 14–RC–150243 .......... A 4/16/2015 5/7/2015 21 4/24/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

14 14–RC–151115 .......... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 5/6/2015 ....................

14 14–RC–151350 .......... A 5/1/2015 5/21/2015 20 5/8/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

14 14–RC–151446 .......... A 5/4/2015 5/26/2015 22 .................... 5/18/2015 

26 15–RC–150292 .......... A 4/16/2015 5/14/2015 28 4/24/2015 ....................

15 15–RC–150893 .......... A 4/27/2015 5/28/2015 31 5/6/2015 ....................

15 15–RC–151118 .......... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 5/6/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

16 16–RC–150207 .......... A 4/16/2015 5/7/2015 21 4/24/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

16 16–RC–150508 .......... A 4/21/2015 5/19/2015 28 4/28/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

16 16–RC–150834 .......... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 5/1/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

16 16–RC–151211 .......... A 4/30/2015 5/27/2015 27 5/7/2015 ....................

16 16–RC–151317 .......... A 4/30/2015 5/19/2015 19 5/8/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

A 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 5/4/2015 ....................

B 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 5/4/2015 ....................

18 18–RC–150800 .......... C 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 5/4/2015 ....................

18 18–RC–150846 .......... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 5/1/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

18 18–RC–151161 .......... A 4/29/2015 5/27/2015 28 5/6/2015 ....................

18 18–RC–151725 .......... A 5/6/2015 5/20/2015 14 5/11/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

18 18–UD–151274 .......... A 4/30/2015 5/27/2015 27 5/8/2015 ....................

Certific. of Representative 

19 19–RC–150145 .......... A 4/14/2015 5/14/2015 30 4/23/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

36 19–RC–150163 .......... A 4/15/2015 5/15/2015 30 4/23/2015 ....................

19 19–RC–150189 .......... A 4/15/2015 5/12/2015 27 4/23/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

A 4/21/2015 5/14/2015 23 4/30/2015 ....................

19 19–RC–150515 .......... B 4/21/2015 5/14/2015 23 4/30/2015 ....................

19 19–RC–150590 .......... A 4/21/2015 5/19/2015 28 .................... 5/6/2015 Certific. of Representative 

19 19–RC–150769 .......... A 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 4/30/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

19 19–RC–151030 .......... A 4/27/2015 5/8/2015 11 5/4/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

36 19–RC–151686 .......... A 5/6/2015 5/27/2015 21 5/12/2015 ....................

19 19–RD–151173 .......... A 4/29/2015 5/20/2015 21 5/5/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

20 20–RC–150652 .......... A 4/22/2015 5/11/2015 19 4/30/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

21 21–RC–150214 .......... A 4/15/2015 5/8/2015 23 .................... 5/4/2015 Certification of Results 

21 21–RC–150242 .......... A 4/15/2015 5/8/2015 23 .................... 5/4/2015 Certification of Results 

21 21–RC–150749 .......... A 4/23/2015 5/27/2015 34 .................... 5/20/2015 

21 21–RC–150874 .......... A 4/24/2015 5/15/2015 21 4/30/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

21 21–RC–150980 .......... A 4/27/2015 5/21/2015 24 5/4/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

22 22–RC–150289 .......... A 4/17/2015 4/27/2015 10 4/21/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

22 22–RC–150630 .......... A 4/22/2015 5/15/2015 23 4/30/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

22 22–RC–150700 .......... A 4/23/2015 5/19/2015 26 5/7/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

22 22–RC–151333 .......... A 5/1/2015 5/27/2015 26 5/11/2015 ....................
49 

Region Case Number Unit Date Filed Election Held 

Date 

No. of 

Days 

Filing to 

Election 

Election 

Approved 

Direction of 

Election Issued Election Result 

22 22–RC–151421 .......... A 5/1/2015 5/22/2015 21 5/12/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

25 25–RC–150488 .......... A 4/21/2015 5/20/2015 29 4/27/2015 ....................

33 25–RC–150678 .......... A 4/22/2015 5/13/2015 21 4/30/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

28 28–RC–150167 .......... A 4/15/2015 5/8/2015 23 4/22/2015 ....................

28 28–RC–150168 .......... A 4/15/2015 5/2/2015 17 4/24/2015 ....................

28 28–RC–150855 .......... A 4/24/2015 5/15/2015 21 5/1/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

28 28–RC–151070 .......... A 4/28/2015 5/14/2015 16 5/6/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

28 28–RC–152225 .......... A 5/14/2015 5/28/2015 14 5/20/2015 ....................

29 29–RC–150499 .......... A 4/21/2015 5/6/2015 15 4/28/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

29 29–RC–150622 .......... A 4/22/2015 5/14/2015 22 4/30/2015 ....................

29 29–RC–150681 .......... A 4/23/2015 5/13/2015 20 4/29/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

29 29–RC–151196 .......... A 4/29/2015 5/19/2015 20 5/8/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

29 29–RC–151310 .......... A 4/30/2015 5/20/2015 20 5/8/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

31 31–RC–150220 .......... A 4/15/2015 5/20/2015 35 4/23/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

31 31–RC–150568 .......... A 4/21/2015 5/22/2015 31 4/29/2015 ....................

32 32–RC–150090 .......... A 4/14/2015 5/8/2015 24 4/20/2015 ....................

32 32–RC–150360 .......... A 4/17/2015 5/19/2015 32 4/24/2015 .................... Certific. of Representative 

32 32–RC–150861 .......... A 4/24/2015 5/21/2015 27 5/1/2015 .................... Certification of Results 

32 32–RC–151435 .......... A 5/1/2015 5/27/2015 26 5/11/2015 ....................

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARK KIRK

Question. Under the Board’s rule governing the processing of representation petition that went into effect on April 14 of this year, employers are required to furnish 

employee names, personal telephone numbers, personal email address, job classification, shift times, in addition to mailing address within 2 days following direction of 

election. These so-called ‘Excelsior lists’ are required without significant direction on 

how the Union may use the contact information following the election. The Board 

itself has said that ‘‘it would not be appropriate at this time to specify a remedy, 

or set of remedies, that would be appropriate in all situations.’’ Can you expand on 

why it would not be appropriate to provide clarity on this issue at this time? Would 

you agree that this lack of clearly outlined repercussions for unions violating the 

privacy rights of workers might lead to more instances of improper use or sale of 

the personal data than would occur in the presence of clearly defined punishments? 

Answer. The amended rule explicitly prohibits use of the Excelsior list ‘‘for purposes other than the representation proceeding, Board proceedings arising from it, 

and related matters.’’ The rule leaves the question of remedies for case-by-case adjudication; thus, in the event of a violation, the Board is not limited by the rule as 

to the remedy it may impose. This is the same approach that the Board has taken 

with the preexisting Excelsior rule. The rulemaking record shows not a single instance of voter list misuse during the nearly 50-year existence of the original rule. 

I am hopeful that the next 50 years will be similarly free of misuse, but I am committed to dealing with any violation that might occur in a firm and appropriate 

manner. 

Question. Illinois has over 36,000 franchise establishments, and franchise businesses employ over 400,000 people in Illinois. Illinois-based franchisors include Bottle & Bottega, BrightStar Care, and Moran Industries. With so many Illinoisans 

having invested their blood, sweat, and tears into establishing and operating small 

businesses using the franchise model, it concerns me that the Board has chosen not 

to go through the formal rule-making process established in the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Shouldn’t small business owners in 

Illinois be afforded the opportunity to provide input on an issue so central to their 

livelihoods? Why is it that the Board has chosen to issue this new joint employer 

standard outside of the formal process, which the Board used in the recent rulemaking on Representation Case Procedures? 

Answer. In the Browning Ferris case, the parties placed before the Board the 

issue whether Browning Ferris Industries and a contractor it engaged to provide 

labor at a recycling facility were joint employers. The case does not involve a franchise arrangement, but nevertheless presents an important legal issue. In order to 

obtain the benefit of as many different views concerning this issue as possible, the 

Board issued a public invitation and press release seeking the input of all persons 

and entities having an interest in the issue. Historically, the Board has decided 

cases addressing this and similar issues without inviting input from nonparties. The 

Board has never used rulemaking to address this or similar issues. However, it has 

used rulemaking dozens of times to amend its procedural rules. 
50 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JAMES LANKFORD

Question. In an age where identity theft is a significant risk, I have serious concerns about the lack of privacy protection for employees’ personal information in the 

Board’s ambush election Final Rule (79 FR 74307). Under the Rule, petitioners may 

gain access to the email addresses, cell phone numbers, shift hours, and locations. 

However, the Final Rule does not comment on how this information should be 

stored or safeguarded. Additionally, the Rule outright rejects the ability of employees to opt out of having their personal information turned over to a union. Please 

respond to the following: 

What guidance will the Board provide to petitioners on the appropriate storage 

and protection of employees’ private information? If the Board will not issue guidance, please explain why not. 

Answer. The rule does not require employers to turn over any information that 

they do not already have in their possession. The rule does not impose on employers 

any specific requirements for the storage and security of that information. The rule 

likewise does not impose on petitioners specific requirements for the storage and security of that information after it has been turned over by employers. However, it 

explicitly prohibits use of the Excelsior lists ‘‘for purposes other than the representation proceeding, Board proceedings arising from it, and related matters.’’ The rule 

leaves the question of remedies for case-by-case adjudication; thus, in the event of 

a violation, the Board is not limited by the rule as to the remedy it may impose. 

This is the same approach that the Board has taken with the pre-existing Excelsior 

rule. The rulemaking record does not include a single instance of voter list misuse, 

involving identity theft or otherwise, during the nearly 50-year existence of the 

original rule. I am hopeful that the next 50 years will be similarly free of misuse, 

but I am committed to dealing with any violation that might occur in a firm and 

appropriate manner. The Board is not presently considering further rulemaking on 

the subject. 

Question. Has the Board issued guidance to petitioners on appropriate and timely 

notification to employees whose personal information is compromised while in the 

custody of a petitioner? If not, why not? 

Answer. As noted above, the rule leaves the question of remedies for the case-bycase adjudication, and nothing prevents the Board from deciding that a petitioner 

be required to notify employees in the event that their personal information is compromised. 

Question. I also have serious concerns about the NLRB’s consideration of changes 

to the joint employer standard. According to the Chamber of Commerce, 89 percent 

of employers in the United States have fewer than 20 employees. Small businesses 

spend 36 percent more per employee for regulatory compliance than do larger businesses. Franchising and subcontracting, as a result, help entrepreneurs specialize, 

become more efficient businessmen and women, and lower barriers to entry. Franchised establishments generated nearly 8.5 million direct jobs and $844 billion of 

output in 2014. Given that a change in the joint employer standard is expected to 

create significant chaos for franchisees, increase their regulatory burden and associated costs, and may make hiring more difficult, what steps will the Board take to 

provide clear and timely guidance to employers when a decision is reached in the 

joint employer case? 

Answer. In the Browning Ferris case, the parties placed before the Board the 

issue whether Browning Ferris Industries and a contractor it engaged to provide 

labor at a recycling facility were joint employers. The case does not involve a franchise arrangement, but nevertheless presents an important legal issue, on which the 

Board has invited broad public input. The case is presently pending before the 

Board. When the Board decides a case, the published decision typically constitutes 

the Board’s guidance to the public. In the relatively unusual event of a decision that 

announces a significant change in Board law, the General Counsel often issues a 

guideline memo explaining how he will apply the decision, if such guidance would 

be helpful to the public and the Board’s field offices. 

Question. Regarding the recent Freshii advice memo dated April 28, 2015, in 

which the Board held that franchisor Freshii is not liable as a ‘‘joint employer,’’ 

please answer the following: 

Did you review the memo by Assistant General Counsel Kearney and approve it? 

Answer. Yes, I did review and approve the Freshii Advice memo. 

Question. What factual differences are there in the McDonald’s case and those described in the memo? 

Answer. As the McDonald’s case is currently being litigated, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to discuss the specific facts of that matter. However, as noted previously, we do believe that we have facts sufficient to lead to a finding that McDon-
51 

ald’s is a joint employer under the current Board standard articulated as recently 

as September 2014 in the CNN America Inc. & Team Video Services LLC case. 

Question. The memo is helpful in detailing what a franchisor and franchise can 

do to avoid joint employment findings. Will the General Counsel’s office release a 

memo detailing what they should not do? 

Answer. Thank you for your acknowledgement of the usefulness of the Advice 

memo in providing guidance to the public. There is no plan to release a memo detailing what franchisors and franchisees should not do since the joint employer relationship comes up in a variety of contexts, not just the franchise model. I commend 

you to our public website where there are a number of Advice memos, as well as 

Board decisions, regarding cases with joint employer allegations. 

Question. Will you reconsider releasing your advice memo regarding the McDonald’s case? 

Answer. The Office of the General Counsel does not release our work product during the pendency of a meritorious case. Thus, as the McDonald’s matter is still an 

open matter that is currently being litigated, we will not be releasing the related 

Advice memo in the near future. 

Question. What costs have been incurred so far in the McDonald’s case? How 

many Board personnel are devoted to it? Do you have a total budget for the case? 

Is it fair to say that the prosecution of McDonald’s case will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars? 

Answer. As to the consolidated complaint issued against McDonald’s, this is currently being litigated. We do not currently have a job costing system in place for 

incurred costs regarding this or any other particular matter. While I am certainly 

willing to provide an estimate of the costs by reviewing the number of board agents 

involved in the litigation to date, it will be an estimate as those same board agents 

have also handled other cases as well during the relevant period. There are currently three full-time and two part-time board agents devoted exclusively to the 

McDonald’s litigation in New York. 

Question. If the NLRB adopts a new definition of joint employer in Browning Ferris or any other case, will the Board use that standard in the franchise context? 

Stated differently, just because your office concludes that under an expansive definition of joint employer as urged by you in your amicus in Browning Ferris there is 

no joint employment in the case reviewed in the April 28 Freshii advice memo, that 

is not a guarantee the Board will agree with you, correct? 

Answer. You are correct that there is no guarantee that the Board will agree with 

my position regarding the joint employer standard as urged in the Browning Ferris 

Industries brief. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator BLUNT. Thank you both for your time today. We will 

leave the record open for one week for additional questions. 

Senator BLUNT. The subcommittee stands in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., Thursday, May 14, 2015, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.]