Skip to Content

Press Releases

Subcommittee Scrutinizes the NLRB and Corporate Campaigns

Click here to watch a live webcast of the Subcommittee hearing.

Opening Statement of Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Chairman Phil Roe, M.D. (Remarks as Prepared):

Today we will examine the role of the National Labor Relations Board in corporate campaigns. I realize this is a general definition of the term, but a corporate campaign is a union effort to disrupt an employer’s routine business. The campaign can take the form of negative advertising, complaints filed against employers with various government agencies, and can even include appeals to political and religious leaders to put pressure on a targeted employer.

The intent of these tactics is to undermine the reputation as well as break the will of an employer who refuses to accept union demands. In some cases, an employer can either concede to demands that may undermine the success of his or her business, or accept public contempt, government penalties, outside interference, and extraordinary litigation costs. Regardless of the potential outcomes, these campaigns can have a detrimental impact on a business’ bottom line and threaten the livelihood of its workers.

Over the years the use of corporate campaigns has accelerated. According to one study, between 1974 and 1999, only 200 corporate campaigns were identified. Yet in 2005 it was estimated that between 15 and 20 corporate campaigns were underway at any given time. And recently the National Labor Relations Board has taken a number of steps to expand the arsenal of tactics available for a corporate campaign.

The board has removed bannering restrictions previously placed on boycotts of neutral employers. Employees of onsite contractors have been granted greater access to the property of the contracting employer connected to organizing activity. The board has also requested briefs that could allow even greater access to an employer’s property.

In one case, the board moved to uphold an election tainted by intimidation of workers because the intimidation originated with “nonparties” to the election. According to the Board’s logic, the outcome of an election can be overturned only when the threats by  nonparties are “so aggravated as to create a general atmosphere of fear and reprisal rendering a free election impossible.” Who will determine when a “general atmosphere of fear and reprisal” exists? The worker who receives an anonymous call at their home and hears a voice promising to “get even” if the worker opposes union representation? Or a federal bureaucrat?

Read More…


Stay Connected