Retail group tells Senate to ax NLRB’s union-election rule

By Kevin Bogardus - 03/21/12 05:07 PM ET

The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) is asking the Senate to weigh in on a contentious union-election rule proposed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

In a letter sent Wednesday to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the trade group said the upper chamber should pass a joint resolution of disapproval against the rule before it takes effect on April 30.

In the letter, Katherine Lugar, RILA’s executive vice president of public affairs, said the election rule would hurt job growth.

“The NLRB’s decision to dramatically shorten the period before a union election erodes employers’ free speech and due process rights. In addition, ambush elections will deny employees access to critical information and time to consider the issues at hand prior to entering the voting booth,” Lugar wrote. “We believe Congress has an obligation to weigh in on this matter, which would have a dramatic effect on American businesses’ ability to grow jobs.”

Passed by the NLRB in December, the rule would speed up union elections by reducing litigation and streamlining practices for the labor board’s regional directors.

Business groups and Republican lawmakers have been up in arms over the rule. Last year, the House passed legislation to void the proposal.

Labor has backed the rule, saying it will ensure that workers who want to vote to join a union will have a chance to do so.

Forty-five Republican senators have signed onto the joint resolution so far, which was introduced by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), ranking member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The resolution has also been introduced in the House.

The resolution was filed under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to stop a rule or regulation from being implemented.

To void the NLRB’s union election rule, the resolution would have to pass both the Senate and the House, and then President Obama would have to sign it.