File 022277

Images

Text

54006 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD
29 CFR Part 104
RIN 3142–AA07
Notification of Employee Rights Under
the National Labor Relations Act
AGENCY: National Labor Relations
Board.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On December 22, 2010, the
National Labor Relations Board (Board)
issued a proposed rule requiring
employers, including labor
organizations in their capacity as
employers, subject to the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA) to post notices
informing their employees of their rights
as employees under the NLRA. This
final rule sets forth the Board’s review
of and responses to comments on the
proposal and incorporates any changes
made to the rule in response to those
comments.
The Board believes that many
employees protected by the NLRA are
unaware of their rights under the statute
and that the rule will increase
knowledge of the NLRA among
employees, in order to better enable the
exercise of rights under the statute. A
beneficial side effect may well be the
promotion of statutory compliance by
employers and unions.
The final rule establishes the size,
form, and content of the notice, and sets
forth provisions regarding the
enforcement of the rule.
DATES: This rule will be effective on
November 14, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lester A. Heltzer, Executive Secretary,
National Labor Relations Board, 1099
14th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20570, (202) 273–1067 (this is not a tollfree
number), 1–866–315–6572 (TTY/
TDD).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Rulemaking
The NLRA, enacted in 1935, is the
Federal statute that regulates most
private sector labor-management
relations in the United States. 1 Section
7 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. 157,
guarantees that
Employees shall have the right to selforganization,
to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other
1 Labor-management relations in the railroad and
airline industries are governed by the Railway
Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.
mutual aid or protection, and shall also have
the right to refrain from any or all such
activities[.]
In Section 1, 29 U.S.C. 151, Congress
explained why it was necessary for
those rights to be protected:
The denial by some employers of the right
of employees to organize and the refusal by
some employers to accept the procedure of
collective bargaining lead to strikes and other
forms of industrial strife or unrest, which
have the intent or the necessary effect of
burdening or obstructing commerce[.] * * *
* * * * *
Experience has proved that protection by
law of the right of employees to organize and
bargain collectively safeguards commerce
from injury, impairment, or interruption, and
promotes the flow of commerce by removing
certain recognized sources of industrial strife
and unrest, by encouraging practices
fundamental to the friendly adjustment of
industrial disputes arising out of differences
as to wages, hours, or other working
conditions, and by restoring equality of
bargaining power between employers and
employees.
* * * * *
It is declared to be the policy of the United
States to eliminate the causes of certain
substantial obstructions to the free flow of
commerce and to mitigate and eliminate
these obstructions when they have occurred
by encouraging the practice and procedure of
collective bargaining and by protecting the
exercise by workers of full freedom of
association, self-organization, and
designation of representatives of their own
choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the
terms and conditions of their employment or
other mutual aid or protection.
Thus, Congress plainly stated that, in its
judgment, protecting the rights of
employees to form and join unions and
to engage in collective bargaining would
benefit not only the employees
themselves, but the nation as a whole.
The Board was established to ensure
that employers and, later, unions
respect the exercise of employees’ rights
under the NLRA. 2
For employees to fully exercise their
NLRA rights, however, they must know
that those rights exist and that the Board
protects those rights. As the Board
explained in its Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), 75 FR 80410, it
has reason to think that most do not. 3
2 The original NLRA did not include restrictions
on the actions of unions; those were added in the
Labor-Management Relations (Taft-Hartley) Act of
1947, 29 U.S.C. 141 et seq., Title I.
3 The Board cited three law review articles in
which the authors contended that American
workers are largely unaware of their NLRA rights,
that the Board can take action to vindicate those
rights, and that this lack of knowledge stands in the
way of employees’ effectively exercising their
rights. Peter D. DeChiara, ‘‘The Right to Know: An
Argument for Informing Employees of Their Rights
under the National Labor Relations Act,’’ 32 Harv.
J. on Legis. 431, 433–434 (1995); Charles J. Morris,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
The Board suggested a number of
reasons why such a knowledge gap
could exist—the low percentage of
employees who are represented by
unions, and thus lack an important
source of information about NLRA
rights; the increasing proportion of
immigrants in the work force, who are
unlikely to be familiar with their
workplace rights; and lack of
information about labor law and labor
relations on the part of high school
students who are about to enter the
labor force. 4
Of greatest concern to the Board,
however, is the fact that, except in very
limited circumstances, no one is
required to inform employees of their
NLRA rights. 5 The Board is almost
unique among agencies and
departments administering major
‘‘Renaissance at the NLRB—Opportunity and
Prospect for Non-Legislative Procedural Reform at
the Labor Board,’’ 23 Stetson L. Rev. 101, 107
(1993); Morris, ‘‘NLRB Protection in the Nonunion
Workplace: A Glimpse at a General Theory of
Section 7 Conduct,’’ 137 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1673, 1675–
1676 (1989). 75 FR at 80411.
4 Id.
5 The Board requires that employees be notified
of their NLRA rights in only the following narrow
circumstances: (1) For the three working days
before a Board-conducted representation election,
the employer is required to post a notice of election
including a brief description of employee rights; see
29 CFR 103.20. (2) When an employer or a union
has been found to have violated employee rights
under the NLRA, it is required to post a notice
containing a brief summary of those rights. (3)
Before a union may seek to obligate newly hired
nonmember employees to pay dues and fees under
a union-security clause, it must inform them of
their right under NLRB v. General Motors, 373 U.S.
734 (1963), and Communications Workers v. Beck,
487 U.S. 735 (1988), to be or remain nonmembers
and that nonmembers have the right to object to
paying for union activities unrelated to the union’s
duties as the bargaining representative and to obtain
a reduction in dues and fees of such activities.
California Saw & Knife Works, 320 NLRB 224, 233
(1995), enfd. sub nom. Machinists v. NLRB, 133
F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 1998), cert. denied sub nom.
Strang v. NLRB, 525 U.S. 813 (1998). The same
notice must also be given to union members if they
did not receive it when they entered the bargaining
unit. Paperworkers Local 1033 (Weyerhaeuser Paper
Co.), 320 NLRB 349, 350 (1995), rev’d. on other
grounds sub nom. Buzenius v. NLRB, 124 F.3d 788
(6th Cir. 1997), vacated sub nom. United
Paperworkers Intern. Union v. Buzenius, 525 U.S.
979 (1998). (4) When an employer voluntarily
recognizes a union, the Board has required that the
employer must post a notice informing employees:
(i) That the employer recognized the union on the
basis of evidence that it was designated by a
majority of the unit employees; (ii) the date of
recognition; (iii) that all employees, including those
who previously signed cards for the recognized
union, have the right to be represented by a labor
organization of their choice, or no union at all; (iv)
that within 45 days of the date of the notice a
decertification or rival petition, supported by 30
percent or more of the unit employees, may be filed
with the Board and will be processed to an election;
and, (v) that if no petition is filed within 45 days,
the recognition will not be subject to challenge for
a reasonable period to allow the employer and
union to negotiate a collective-bargaining
agreement. Dana Corp., 351 NLRB 434 (2007).
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54007
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal labor and employment laws in
not requiring employers routinely to
post notices at their workplaces
informing employees of their statutory
rights. 6 Given this common practice of
workplace notice-posting, it is
reasonable for the Board to infer that a
posting requirement will increase
employees’ awareness of their rights
under the NLRA. 7 Further support for
that position is President Obama’s
recent Executive Order 13496, issued on
January 30, 2009, which stressed the
need for employees to be informed of
their NLRA rights. Executive Order
13496 requires Federal contractors and
subcontractors to include in their
Government contracts specific
provisions requiring them to post
notices of employees’ NLRA rights. On
May 20, 2010, the Department of Labor
issued a Final Rule implementing the
order effective June 21, 2010. 75 FR
28368, 29 CFR part 471.
After due consideration, the Board
has decided to require that employees of
all employers subject to the NLRA be
informed of their NLRA rights.
Informing employees of their statutory
rights is central to advancing the
NLRA’s promise of ‘‘full freedom of
association, self-organization, and
designation of representatives of their
own choosing.’’ NLRA Section 1, 29
U.S.C. 151. It is fundamental to
employees’ exercise of their rights that
the employees know both their basic
rights and where they can go to seek
help in understanding those rights.
Notice of the right of self-organization,
to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively, to
engage in other concerted activities, and
to refrain from such activities, and of
the Board’s role in protecting those
statutory rights is necessary to effectuate
the provisions of the NLRA.
The Board believes that the workplace
itself is the most appropriate place for
communicating with employees about
their basic statutory rights as employees.
Cf. Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556,
574 (1978) (‘‘[T]he plant is a particularly
appropriate place for the distribution of
[NLRA] material.’’).
Accordingly, and pursuant to its
rulemaking authority under Section 6 of
the NLRA, the Board proposed a new
rule requiring all employers subject to
the NLRA to post a copy of a notice
advising employees of their rights under
6 See, e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e–10(a); Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 627; Family and
Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2601, 2619(a); Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 CFR 516.4 (implementing
29 U.S.C. 211). 75 FR 80411.
7 As set forth in the NPRM, two petitions were
filed to address this anomaly. 75 FR 80411.
the NLRA and providing information
pertaining to the enforcement of those
rights. 75 FR 80411. For the reasons
discussed more fully below, the Board
tentatively determined that the content
of the notice should be the same as that
of the notice required under the
Department of Labor’s notice posting
rule, 29 CFR part 471. Id. at 80412. Also,
as discussed at length below, the Board
proposed that failure to post the notice
would be found to be an unfair labor
practice—i.e., to interfere with, restrain,
or coerce employees in the exercise of
their NLRA rights, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. Id. at
80414. The Board also proposed that
failure to post the notice could lead to
tolling of the 6-month statute of
limitations for filing unfair labor
practice charges, and that knowing and
willful failure to post the notice could
be considered as evidence of unlawful
motive in unfair labor practice cases. Id.
The Board explained that the burden of
compliance would be minimal—the
notices would be made available at no
charge by the Board (both electronically
and in hard copy), and employers
would only be required to post the
notices in places where they
customarily post notices to employees;
the rule would contain no reporting or
recordkeeping requirements. Id. at
80412. Finally, the Board expressed its
position that it was not required to
prepare an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis of the proposed rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq., and that the notice posting
requirement was not subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Id. at 80415–80416.
The Board invited comments on its
legal authority to issue the rule, the
content of the notice, the requirements
for posting the notice, the proposed
enforcement scheme, the definitions of
terms in the proposed rule, and on its
positions concerning the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the Paperwork
Reduction Act. The Board stated that
comments would be accepted for 60
days following the publication of the
NPRM in the Federal Register, or until
February 22, 2011. The Board received
6,560 comments by February 22.
However, many late-filed comments
were also submitted, and the Board
decided to accept all comments that it
received on or before March 23. 8
8 March 23, 2011 was the date that the Board
downloaded all of the electronic and (pdf. versions
of) hard copy comments it had received from
http://www.regulations.gov and subsequently
uploaded into a text analytics tool for coding and
review.
A few commenters submitted their comments in
both electronic and hard copy form. Because all
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
In all, 7,034 comments were received
from employers, employees, unions,
employer organizations, worker
assistance organizations, and other
concerned organizations and
individuals, including two members of
Congress. The majority of comments, as
well as Board Member Hayes’ dissent,
oppose the rule or aspects of it; many
opposing comments contain suggestions
for improvement in the event the Board
issues a final rule. Many comments,
however, support the rule; a few of
those suggest changes to clarify or
strengthen the rule. The Board wishes to
express its appreciation to all those who
took the time to submit thoughtful and
helpful comments and suggestions
concerning the proposed rule. 9
After careful consideration of the
comments received, the Board has
decided to issue a final rule that is
similar to that proposed in the NPRM,
but with some changes suggested by
commenters. The most significant
change in the final rule is the deletion
of the requirement that employers
distribute the notice via email, voice
mail, text messaging or related
electronic communications if they
customarily communicate with their
employees in that manner. Other
significant changes include
clarifications of the employee notice
detailing employee rights protected by
the NLRA and unlawful conduct on the
part of unions; clarification of the rule’s
requirements for posting notices in
foreign languages; allowing employers
to post notices in black and white as
well as in color; and exemption of the
U.S. Postal Service from coverage of the
rule. The Board’s responses to the
comments, and the changes in the rule
and in the wording of the required
notice of employee rights occasioned by
the comments, are explained below. (In
his dissent, Board Member Hayes raises
a number of points that are also made
in some of the comments. The Board’s
responses to those comments should be
understood as responding to the dissent
as well.) 10
comments received are included in the numbers
cited in text above, those numbers overstate
somewhat the number of individuals, organizations,
etc. that submitted comments.
9 Many comments charge that the Board is issuing
the rule for political reasons, to encourage and
spread unionism, to discourage employers and
employees from engaging in direct communication
and problem solving, to drive up union
membership in order to retain agency staff, and
even to ‘‘line [its] pockets.’’ The Board responds
that its reasons for issuing the rule are set forth in
this preamble.
10 The Board majority’s reasoning stands on its
own. By its silence, the majority does not adopt any
characterization made by the dissent of the
majority’s rationale or motives.
54008 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
II. Authority
Section 6 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. 156,
provides that ‘‘The Board shall have
authority from time to time to make,
amend, and rescind, in the manner
prescribed by the Administrative
Procedure Act [5 U.S.C. 553], such rules
and regulations as may be necessary to
carry out the provisions of this Act.’’ As
discussed in detail below, the Board
interprets Section 6 as authorizing the
rule.
A. The Board’s Section 6 Rulemaking
Authority
Numerous comments dispute the
Board’s statutory authority to enact the
proposed rule. Many note the fact that
the Board’s rulemaking is constrained
by Congressional intent as evidenced in
its enabling statute. For instance, the
American Trucking Association quotes a
Ninth Circuit case explaining that
Section 6 ‘‘does not authorize the Board
to promulgate rules and regulations
which have the effect of enlarging its
authority beyond the scope intended by
Congress,’’ 11 and similarly, the Motor &
Equipment Manufacturers Association
asserts, ‘‘A regulation cannot stand if it
is contrary to the statute.’’ 12 The Board
agrees that it may not exercise its
rulemaking authority in a way contrary
to that intended by Congress, but for the
reasons discussed below it also does not
believe that it has done so in this rule.
Several comments assert that because
NLRA Section 6 is written in general,
rather than specific, terms, the Board is
not empowered to enact the proposed
rule. For example, Associated Builders
and Contractors argues that ‘‘the lack of
express statutory language under
Section 6 of the NLRA to require the
posting of a notice of any kind ‘is a
strong indicator, if not dispositive, that
the Board lacks the authority to impose
such a requirement * * *.’ ’’ 13 And the
Heritage Foundation likewise argues
that the Board’s reliance upon its
general Section 6 rulemaking authority
does not suffice to meet the
Administrative Procedure Act’s
requirement that the NPRM must
11 Gen. Eng’g, Inc. v. NLRB, 341 F.2d 367, 374
(1965).
12 Citing United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642,
673 (1997). However, the Supreme Court actually
held there that an agency’s interpretation of its
enabling statute must be given ‘‘controlling weight
unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly
contrary to the statute.’’ (quoting Chevron U.S.A.
Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,
844 (1984)). There, the Court upheld the rule and
found it was not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly
contrary to the statute.
13 Quoting Member Hayes’ dissent, 75 FR 80415.
‘‘reference the legal authority under
which the rule is proposed.’’ 14
The Board believes that these
comments are in error because the
courts’ construction of other statutes’
general rulemaking authority, as well as
Section 6 in particular, fully support its
reading of this statutory provision. In
fact, earlier this year, the Supreme Court
issued a decision in Mayo Foundation
for Medical Education and Research v.
United States 15 (discussed more fully
below), unanimously reaffirming the
principle that a general grant of
rulemaking authority fully suffices to
confer legislative (or binding)
rulemaking authority upon an agency.
Even prior to Mayo, a long line of both
non-NLRA and NLRA cases supported
reading Section 6 in the manner
suggested by the Board. Over forty years
ago, in Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 16
the Supreme Court found that the
expansive grant of rulemaking authority
in Section 8 of the Housing Act was
sufficient to grant legislative rulemaking
power to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development. The Court
further noted that ‘‘[s]uch broad rulemaking
powers have been granted to
numerous other federal administrative
bodies in substantially the same
language.’’ 17 A few years later, in
Mourning v. Family Publication
Services, 18 the Court reaffirmed its
stance in Thorpe:
Where the empowering provision of a
statute states simply that the agency may
‘make * * * such rules and regulations as
may be necessary to carry out the provisions
of this Act,’ we have held that the validity
of a regulation promulgated thereunder will
be sustained so long as it is ‘reasonably
related to the purposes of the enabling
legislation.’ 19
Following the Supreme Court’s lead,
key circuit decisions then extended the
14 See 5 USC 553(b)(2). For this conclusion, the
Heritage Foundation cites Global Van Lines, Inc., v.
ICC, 714 F.2d 1290, 1297–98 (5th Cir. 1983). But
Global Van Lines did not find that a general
statement of authority can never meet the APA’s
requirements to specify the legal authority for the
rule. Instead, the Fifth Circuit held that that portion
of the APA is violated when an agency chooses to
rely on additional statutory provisions in support
of its rule for the first time on appeal, and those
grounds do not appear elsewhere in the
administrative record. See id. at 1298–99. Here, in
contrast, the grounds for the Board’s rule are clearly
laid out in subsection B, Statutory Authority,
below.
15 131 S.Ct. 704, 713–14 (2011).
16 393 U.S. 268 (1969).
17 Id. at 277 n. 28 (citations omitted). The
rulemaking grant there at issue provided that HUD
may, ‘‘from time to time * * * make, amend, and
rescind such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act,’’
id. at 277, quite similar to Section 6 of the NLRA.
18 411 U.S. 356 (1973).
19 Id. at 369 (quoting Thorpe, 393 U.S. at 280–81).
VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
notion that broad grants of rulemaking
authority conveyed legislative
rulemaking power. 20 Although the
Board had historically chosen to make
policy by adjudications, the Supreme
Court, consistent with the non-NLRA
case law, used a pair of Board
enforcement cases to unanimously
emphasize the existence of the Board’s
legislative rulemaking authority, NLRB
v. Wyman-Gordon Co. 21 and NLRB v.
Bell Aerospace. 22
In 1991, after the Board enacted a rule
involving health care units, the
Supreme Court unanimously upheld
that rule in American Hospital
Association v. NLRB. 23 The Supreme
Court found that that the general grant
of rulemaking authority contained in
Section 6 of the Act ‘‘was
unquestionably sufficient to authorize
the rule at issue in this case unless
limited by some other provision in the
Act.’’ 24 As in AHA, there is no such
limitation here on the Board’s authority
to enact the proposed Rule, as explained
further below. As Senator Tom Harkin
and Representative George Miller 25
emphasized in their comment, the
Supreme Court in AHA examined ‘‘the
structure and the policy of the NLRA,’’
in order to conclude:
As a matter of statutory drafting, if
Congress had intended to curtail in a
particular area the broad rulemaking
authority granted in § 6, we would have
expected it to do so in language expressly
describing an exception from that section or
at least referring specifically to the section. 26
Thus, the Court could not have been
clearer that unless the Board is
‘‘expressly’’ limited in some manner,
Section 6 empowers the Board to make
‘‘such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act.’’ This point was underscored
20 Nat’l Ass’n. of Pharm. Mfrs. v. FTC, 637 F.2d
877, 880 (2d Cir. 1981) (‘‘this generous construction
of agency rulemaking authority has become firmly
entrenched’’); Nat’l Petroleum Refiners Ass’n v.
FTC, 482 F.2d 672, 686 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (‘‘plain,
expansive language’’ of the rulemaking grant at
issue, together with the ‘‘broad, undisputed
policies’’ meant to be furthered by Congress’s
enactment of the Federal Trade Commission Act of
1914, sufficed to grant the FTC substantive
rulemaking authority).
21 394 U.S. 759, 764 (1969) (plurality opinion of
Fortas, J., joined by Warren, C.J., Stewart, J., and
White, J.), 770 (Black, J., Marshall, J., and Brennan,
J), 777, 779 (Douglas, J.), 783 n. 2 (Harlan, J.).
22 416 U.S. 267, 295 (1974) (majority opinion of
Powell, J., and dissenting opinion of White, J. (and
three other justices)).
23 499 U.S. 606 (1991) (AHA).
24 Id. at 609–10 (emphasis added).
25 (Hereafter, Harkin and Miller.) Senator Harkin
is the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions. Representative
Miller is Ranking Member on the House Committee
on Education and the Workforce.
26 Id. at 613 (emphasis added).
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54009
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
in a Wagner Act-era Senate hearing, as
cited by Americans for Limited
Government (ALG), in which it was
acknowledged that the language of
Section 6 indeed grants ‘‘broad powers’’
to the Board. 27
And in January of this year, a
unanimous Supreme Court, in Mayo
Foundation for Medical Education and
Research v. United States, affirmed this
key principle that a broad grant of
statutory rulemaking authority conveys
authority to adopt legislative rules. 28
Mayo concerned in part the question of
how much deference a Treasury
Department tax regulation should
receive. In Mayo, an amicus argued that
the Treasury Department’s
interpretation should receive less
deference because it was issued under a
general grant of rulemaking authority, as
opposed to an interpretation issued
under a specific grant of authority. 29
The Court responded by first explaining
its earlier holding in U.S. v. Mead, that
Chevron deference is appropriate ‘‘when
it appears that Congress delegated
authority to the agency generally to
make rules carrying the force of law,
and that the agency interpretation
claiming deference was promulgated in
the exercise of that authority.’’ 30 Then,
in significant part, the Court observed:
Our inquiry in that regard does not turn on
whether Congress’s delegation of authority
was general or specific.
* * * * *
The Department issued the full-time
employee rule pursuant to the explicit
authorization to ‘‘prescribe all needful rules
and regulations for the enforcement’’ of the
Internal Revenue Code. 26 U.S.C. 7805(a). We
have found such ‘‘express congressional
authorizations to engage in the process of
rulemaking’’ to be ‘‘a very good indicator of
delegation meriting Chevron treatment.’’ 31
And so, all nine members of the
Supreme Court agreed on the following
key principle: an express, albeit general,
grant of rulemaking authority is fully
sufficient for an agency to receive
Chevron deference for its rulemaking. It
follows that a broad grant of rulemaking
authority will suffice for the agency to
engage in legislative rulemaking in the
first place. Thus, the Supreme Court’s
27 Statement of Donald A. Callahan, U.S. Senate
Committee on Education and Labor, March 29,
1935, Legislative History of the National Labor
Relations Act, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1949, p. 2002.
28 131 S. Ct. 704, 713–14 (2011).
29 Id. at 713.
30 Id. (quoting United States v. Mead, 533 U.S.
218, 226–27 (2001)); see also Chevron, 467 U.S. at
842–43 (announcing two-part framework for
determining whether courts should grant deference
to agency interpretations of enabling statutes).
31 Mayo, 131 S. Ct. at 713–14 (emphasis added
and citations omitted).
rulings continue to fully support a broad
construction of Section 6.
Disputing this conclusion, ALG
asserts that Section 6 was intended to be
used ‘‘primarily’’ for procedural
rulemaking, and cites a Senate report
from the Wagner Act’s legislative
history. That Senate report explains:
‘‘[i]n no case do the rules have the force
of law in the sense that criminal
penalties or fines accrue for their
violation, and it seems sufficient that
the rules prescribed must be ‘necessary
to carry out the provisions’ of the
act.’’ 32 The Board disagrees. The cited
language merely proclaims the obvious,
that no criminal penalties or fines
accrue for violating the Board’s rules.
However, laws such as the NLRA that
do not impose criminal penalties or
fines for their violation can also have
the ‘‘force of law’’ (which is perhaps
why the Senate report used the limiting
phrase ‘‘in the sense of’’). The Supreme
Court has previously recognized that
final Agency orders under Sections 10
(e) and (f) of the Act, despite their nonself
enforcing nature, have ‘‘the force
and effect of law.’’ 33 So too, do the
Board’s rules have the force and effect
of law, as held by the Supreme Court in
AHA. 34
Several comments discuss whether
Board Rule 103.20, which mandates the
posting of an election notice in a
workplace three working days prior to a
representation election, should be
considered analogous to the proposed
rule. The United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union (UFCW)
comments that the election rule is, like
the proposed rule, only minimally
burdensome and further noted that it
has never been challenged. 35 ALG
disagrees that the election rule should
be considered analogous here, because
although in the election context a notice
posting is the most feasible means to
inform employees about an upcoming
election that is occurring at a specific
32 See Comparison of S. 2926 (73d Congress) and
S. 1958 (74th Congress) 24 (Comm. Print 1935),
reprinted in 1 Legislative History of the National
Labor Relations Act, 1935, (1949) at 1349.
33 NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132,
153–54 (1975) (ordering disclosure of such Agency
opinions under the FOIA, and quoting legislative
history of the FOIA to that effect, H.R. Rep. No.
1497, p. 7, U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, 1966,
p. 2424).
34 499 U.S. at 609–10. But even if one were to
construe the report in the way advocated by the
comment, such reports themselves do not have the
force and effect of law, see Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S.
182, 192 (1993); AHA, 499 U.S. at 616, and thus at
best are only potential evidence of legislative intent.
35 However, it is incorrect that the rule has never
been challenged; it has been challenged and
upheld. See Pannier Corp. v. NLRB, 120 F.3d 603,
606–07 (6th Cir. 1997) (rejecting an as-applied
challenge to Rule 103.20).
VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
place and time, that is not the case in
the NLRA rights context, in which
employees can just search the Internet
to find out more information. The Board
agrees with the UFCW that posting a
notice is a minimally burdensome way
to ensure that employees receive certain
information, although obviously, the
proposed notice will reach many more
employers over a much longer period of
time than do election notices. And
ALG’s acknowledgment that a notice
posting in the workplace is in fact
sometimes the most feasible means to
inform employees of important
information supports the Board’s belief,
explained below, that workplace notice
posting is a more efficient way of
informing employees of their NLRA
rights than relying on information
available on the Internet.
A few comments argue that the Board
is a law enforcement agency only, and
should not be engaging in rulemaking
for that reason. One comment asserts
that ‘‘Congress did not intend to
‘‘empower the NLRB to be a rulemaking
body, but rather an investigatory/
enforcement agent of the NLRA.’’ 36 The
Board responds that by enacting Section
6, Congress plainly and explicitly
intended to, and did, ‘‘empower the
NLRB to be a rulemaking body.’’ And,
as shown above, AHA conclusively
found that the Board is empowered to
use its rulemaking powers, as the Court
had previously indicated in Wyman-
Gordon and Bell Aerospace. 37
A joint comment submitted by
Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Sam Batkins
argues against the Board’s assertion of
Section 6 authority here by asserting
that ‘‘the Supreme Court has
circumscribed NLRB rulemaking in the
past: ‘The deference owed to an expert
tribunal cannot be allowed to slip into
a judicial inertia which results in the
unauthorized assumption by an agency
of major policy decisions properly made
by Congress.’ ’’ However, that comment
neglects to provide the citation for that
quotation, American Ship Building Co.
v. NLRB, 38 which was not a rulemaking
case but an adjudication. In any event,
the Board does not agree that this rule
presumes to make a major policy
decision properly made by Congress
alone. As explained in subsection B,
36 Comment of Manufacturers’ Association of
South Central Pennsylvania.
37 In National Petroleum Refiners Ass’n v. FTC,
482 F.2d 672 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the court rejected the
argument that the FTC’s prosecutorial functions
rendered it unsuitable for issuing rules. By way of
example, it noted that the NLRB is similar to the
FTC in its methods of adjudication and
enforcement, but the Supreme Court had repeatedly
encouraged the Board to utilize its rulemaking
powers. Id. at 684.
38 380 U.S. 300, 318 (1965).
54010 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Statutory Authority, below, the Board
believes that it has been Congressionally
authorized to make this regulatory
decision in the interests of carrying out
the provisions of the Act.
Many comments argue that the Board
should heed the use of the word
‘‘necessary’’ in Section 6. For instance,
the Portland Cement Association
comments that Section 6 requires the
Board to demonstrate that: (1) The
specific rule being proposed is, in fact,
necessary, and (2) the adoption of the
proposed rule will carry out one or more
specific provisions of the Act. 39 The
Board believes, for the reasons
expressed in subsection C, Factual
Support, below, that the requisite
showing of necessity has been made.
And, as explained below, the adoption
of the proposed rule is consistent with
Section 1 and will help effectuate
Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the NLRA.
The Board, however, disagrees with
the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers
Association’s assertion based upon the
case of West Virginia State Board of
Education v. Barnette 40 that the Board
needs to show ‘‘a grave and immediate
danger’’ before enacting a rule. First,
that case held that that very rigorous
standard of review is required only
where a First Amendment freedom is
alleged to have been infringed. The
Court further noted that where the First
Amendment is not implicated, the
government may regulate an area so
long as it has a ‘‘rational basis’’ for
doing so. As explained in subsection B,
Statutory Authority, below, this rule
infringes upon no First Amendment
interests, and consequently, the rule
should be judged on a standard similar
to the ‘‘rational basis’’ test laid out in
Barnette. It was in fact just such a
deferential standard which the Supreme
Court used to examine the Board’s
health care rule in AHA. There, the
Court found that even if it read Section
9 to find any ambiguity, it still would
have deferred to the Board’s ‘‘reasonable
interpretation of the statutory text,’’ and
found the Board authorized under
Sections 6 and 9 to enact the health care
bargaining unit rule at issue. 41 No
‘‘grave and immediate danger’’ was
found to be required prior to the Board
enacting that rule. This ruling was also
consistent with the Supreme Court’s
earlier holdings in Thorpe and
Mourning, in which regulations
promulgated under broadly phrased
grants of authority needed to be only
39 See also comment of Americans for Limited
Government, citing to AFL–CIO v. Chao, 409 F.3d
377, 391 (D.C. Cir. 2005) for the same principle.
40 319 U.S. 624, 639 (1943).
41 499 U.S. at 614.
‘‘reasonably related to the purposes of
the enabling legislation.’’ 42 For the
reasons shown below, that standard is
more than met in the present rule.
B. The Board’s Statutory Authority To
Issue This Rule
The National Labor Relations Act
does not directly address an employer’s
obligation to post a notice of its
employees’ rights arising under the Act
or the consequences an employer may
face for failing to do so. However, as
stated, NLRA Section 6 empowers the
Board to promulgate legislative rules ‘‘as
may be necessary to carry out the
provisions’’ of the Act. 29 U.S.C. 156. A
determination of necessity under
Section 6 made by the Board, as
administrator of the NLRA, is entitled to
deference. See Ragsdale v. Wolverine
World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81, 86 (2002).
Furthermore, even in the absence of
express rulemaking authority, ‘‘the
power of an administrative agency to
administer a congressionally created
* * * program necessarily requires the
formulation of policy and the making of
rules to fill any gap left, implicitly or
explicitly, by Congress.’’ Morton v. Ruiz,
415 U.S. 199, 231 (1974). Under the
well-known test articulated by the
Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), courts will
defer to the Board’s reasonable
interpretation of a gap left by Congress
in the NLRA.
An examination of the provisions of
the whole law demonstrate how the
notice-posting rule is a legitimate
exercise of both legislative rulemaking
authority under Section 6 and implied
gap-filling authority under Chevron, 467
U.S. at 843. Section 1 of the NLRA
explains that Congress deliberately
chose the means of ‘‘encouraging the
practice and procedure of collective
bargaining’’ and ‘‘protecting the exercise
of workers of full freedom of
association, self-organization, and
designation of representatives of their
own choosing’’ in order to combat the
substantial burdens on commerce
caused by certain employer and labor
union practices as well as by the
inherent ‘‘inequality of bargaining
power between employees * * * and
employers.’’ 29 U.S.C. 151. 43 Section 7
42 Mourning, 411 U.S. at 369 (quoting Thorpe, 393
U.S. at 280–81).
43 These regulations are entirely compatible with
the national labor policy, as expressed in Section
1, ‘‘to eliminate the causes of certain substantial
obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to
mitigate and eliminate these obstructions when
they have occurred.’’ 29 U.S.C. 151 (fifth
paragraph). As explained below, the Board’s ability
to ‘‘eliminate’’ the causes of labor strife and
depressed wage rates, ‘‘which have the intent or
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
therefore sets forth the core rights of
employees ‘‘to self-organization’’; ‘‘to
form, join, or assist labor organizations’’;
‘‘to bargain collectively’’; and ‘‘to engage
in other concerted activities’’; as well as
the right ‘‘to refrain from any or all such
activities.’’ Id. § 157. Section 8 defines
and prohibits union and employer
‘‘unfair labor practices’’ that infringe on
employees’ Section 7 rights, id. § 158,
and Section 10 authorizes the Board to
adjudicate unfair labor practice claims,
id. § 160, subject to the NLRA’s
procedural six-month statute of
limitations, see Zipes v. Trans World
Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 395 n.11
(1982). Finally, Section 9 authorizes the
Board to conduct representation
elections and issue certifications. 29
U.S.C. 159.
Notably, the NLRA does not give the
Board or its General Counsel roving
investigatory powers. Although the
Board is specifically empowered to
‘‘prevent’’ unfair labor practices, id.
§ 160(a), ‘‘[t]he Board may not act until
an unfair labor practice charge is filed
* * * alleging a violation of the Act.’’
2 The Developing Labor Law 2683 (John
E. Higgins, Jr. ed., 5th ed. 2006). In
addition, certification ‘‘procedures are
set in motion with the filing of a
representation petition.’’ Id. at 2662. In
both instances, the initiating document
is filed by a private party. Id. at 2683
(citing 29 CFR 102.9); id. at 2662–63
(citing 29 U.S.C. 159(c)(1)(A), (B), and
(e)(1)).
Enforcement of the NLRA and
effectuation of Congress’s national labor
policy therefore depend on the
existence of outside actors who are not
only aware of their rights but also know
where they may seek to vindicate them
within appropriate timeframes. The
Department of Labor made a similar
finding in an analogous rulemaking
proceeding under the Fair Labor
Standards Act: ‘‘effective enforcement of
the [FLSA] depends to a great extent
upon knowledge on the part of covered
employees of the provisions of the act
and the applicability of such provisions
to them, and a greater degree of
compliance with the act has been
effected in situations where employees
are aware of their rights under the law.’’
14 FR 7516, 7516 (Dec. 16, 1949). Given
the direct relationship between
employees’ timely awareness of their
rights under the NLRA and the Board’s
necessary effect of burdening or obstructing
commerce,’’ id., depends on workers’ knowledge of
their rights and the protections provided by the
NLRB. The Board therefore rejects the argument of
the Manufacturer’s Association of South Central
Pennsylvania that both the notice-posting rule and
the Board’s general assertion of rulemaking
authority are inconsistent with Section 1.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54011
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
ability to protect and enforce those
rights, this rule is ‘‘necessary’’ for
purposes of Section 6.
Aside from the rule’s manifest
necessity, the notice posting
requirement fills a Chevron-type gap in
the NLRA’s statutory scheme. Thus, as
discussed, the purpose of Section 1, as
implemented in Sections 7 and 8, is to
encourage the free exercise and
enforcement of the Act’s provisions, and
fulfillment of that purpose depends on
the private initiative of employees and
employers to commence Board
representation proceedings pursuant to
Section 9 and Board unfair labor
practice proceedings pursuant to
Section 10. The effective working of the
NLRA’s administrative machinery
therefore presupposes that workers and
their employers have knowledge of the
rights afforded by the statute and the
means for their timely enforcement. The
statute, however, has no provision with
respect to making that knowledge
available, a subject about which the
statute is completely silent.
This statutory gap has always been
present but was of less significance in
earlier years when the density of union
organization was greater, since, as is
widely recognized, unions have been a
traditional source of information about
the NLRA’s provisions. See Lechmere,
Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527, 531–32
(1992) (reaffirming that the Section 7
rights of employees interested in union
organization depend to some extent on
their having access to unions); Harlan
Fuel Co., 8 N.L.R.B. 25, 32 (1938)
(holding that the rights guaranteed to
employees by Section 7 include ‘‘full
freedom to receive aid, advice and
information from others concerning
[their self-organization] rights’’); cf.
Chamber of Commerce of the United
States v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60, 68 (2008)
(observing that Section 7 ‘‘implies an
underlying right to receive
information’’). Moreover, as rates of
unionization have declined, employees
are less likely to have experience with
collective bargaining or to be in contact
with other employees who have had
such experience. The statutory gap is
thus now important to the Board’s
administration of the NLRA and its role
in enforcing employees’ rights.
As the Supreme Court has observed,
The responsibility to adapt the Act to
changing patterns of industrial life is
entrusted to the Board. * * * It is the
province of the Board, not the courts, to
determine whether or not the ‘‘need’’ [for a
Board rule] exists in light of changing
industrial practices and the Board’s
cumulative experience in dealing with labormanagement
relations. For the Board has the
‘‘special function of applying the general
provisions of the Act to the complexities of
industrial life,’’ and its special competence in
this field is the justification for the deference
accorded its determination.
NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S.
251, 266 (1975) (citations omitted).
Consistent with this understanding of
the Board’s role, the notice-posting
regulations represent an attempt to
‘‘adapt the Act’’ in light of recent
realities and ‘‘the Board’s cumulative
experience.’’ Id. The rule is wholly
consistent with the aims of the NLRA,
and the ‘‘need’’ for it now is heightened
given the ‘‘changing patterns of
industrial life.’’ Id.
For all these reasons, this rule is
entitled to deference regardless of how
it is characterized because it is
‘‘reasonably related to the purposes of
the enabling legislation,’’ Thorpe, 393
U.S. at 280–81, and constitutes a
‘‘ ‘reasonable interpretation’ of the
enacted text,’’ Mayo, 131 S. Ct. at 714
(quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844).
In response to the NPRM, a number of
arguments have been made challenging
the Board’s statutory authority to
promulgate the notice posting rule. As
explained below, the Board does not
find merit in any of these arguments.
1. Limitations on the Board’s
Rulemaking Authority Implied by
Sections 9 and 10 of the Act
Of the comments that address the
Board’s statutory authority to issue this
rule, many express agreement with the
dissenting views of Member Hayes that
were published in the NPRM. Member
Hayes criticized the basis for the rule
and questioned the Board’s statutory
authority to promulgate and enforce it.
See 75 FR 80415. He specifically
referred to Section 10 as an obstacle to
the proposed rule, because it
‘‘indicate[d] to [him] that the Board
clearly lacks the authority to order
affirmative notice-posting action in the
absence of an unfair labor practice
charge filed by an outside party.’’ Id.
Many comments submitted in
response to the NPRM, such as those of
the Texas Association for Home Care &
Hospice and those of the Independent
Bakers Association, interpret Section 10
to prohibit the Board from ordering any
affirmative act that does not address the
consequences of an unfair labor
practice. Although this proposition may
be true when the Board acts through
adjudication—the administrative
function to which Section 10 directly
applies—it does not perforce apply
when the Board specifies affirmative
requirements via rulemaking under
Section 6. See Clifton v. FEC, 114 F.3d
1309, 1312 (1st Cir. 1997) (‘‘Agencies
are often allowed through rulemaking to
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
regulate beyond the express substantive
directives of the statute, so long as the
statute is not contradicted.’’) (citing
Mourning). If it did, then the Board’s
longstanding rule mandating that
employers post an election notice three
days before a representation election
would be subject to challenge on that
ground. See 29 CFR 103.20; see also
Pannier Corp., Graphics Div. v. NLRB,
120 F.3d 603, 606–07 (6th Cir. 1997)
(rejecting an as-applied challenge to
§ 103.20). Furthermore, under American
Hospital Association, the Board’s
exercise of its broad rulemaking
authority under Section 6 is presumed
to be authorized unless elsewhere in the
Act there is ‘‘language expressly
describing an exception from that
section or at least referring specifically
to the section.’’ 499 U.S. at 613. Section
10 does not refer to the Board’s Section
6 authority.
Some comments, such as those of the
Council on Labor Law Equality
(COLLE), contend that the Board has no
authority whatsoever to administer the
NLRA unless a representation petition
or unfair labor practice charge has been
filed under Sections 9 or 10,
respectively. The Board declines to
adopt such a narrow view of its own
authority. Certainly, the Board cannot
issue certifications or unfair labor
practice orders via rulemaking
proceedings. But that is not what this
rule does. As explained above, by
promulgating the notice-posting rule,
the Board is taking a modest step that
is ‘‘necessary to carry out the
provisions’’ of the Act, 29 U.S.C. 156,
and that also fills a statutory gap left by
Congress in the NLRA.
Moreover, the argument advanced by
COLLE and others fails to appreciate
that the Board’s authority to administer
the Act is not strictly limited to those
means specifically set forth in the
NLRA. Rather, as the Supreme Court has
recognized, the NLRA impliedly
authorizes the Board to take appropriate
measures ‘‘to prevent frustration of the
purposes of the Act.’’ NLRB v. Nash-
Finch Co., 404 U.S. 138, 142 (1971). By
way of example, the Supreme Court
pointed out that its decisions had
recognized the Board’s implied
authority to petition for writs of
prohibition against premature
invocation of the review jurisdiction of
the courts of appeals, see In re NLRB,
304 U.S. 486, 496 (1938); to institute
contempt proceedings for violation of
enforced Board orders, see
Amalgamated Util. Workers v. Con.
Edison Co., 309 U.S. 261 (1940); and to
file claims in bankruptcy for Boardawarded
backpay, see Nathanson v.
NLRB, 344 U.S. 25 (1952). Relying on
54012 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
that precedent in Nash-Finch Co., the
Supreme Court concluded that the
Board also had implied authority ‘‘to
enjoin state action where [the Board’s]
federal power preempts the field.’’ 404
U.S. at 144. Like these judicially
recognized powers, the notice-posting
requirement that is the subject of this
rulemaking has not been specifically
provided for by Congress. But the cited
cases demonstrate that Congress need
not expressly list a power for the Board
to legitimately exercise it. Indeed, the
notice-posting requirement is not even
an implied power of the Board in the
same sense as those previously
mentioned. Rather, it is the product of
the Board’s exercise of express
rulemaking authority and inherent gapfilling
authority, both of which have
been delegated to the Board by
Congress.
2. The First Amendment and Section
8(c) of the NLRA
A handful of commenters argue that
the notice-posting requirement violates
the First Amendment to the
Constitution, Section 8(c) of the NLRA,
or both. For example, the Center on
National Labor Policy, Inc. maintains
that ‘‘compelling an employer to post its
property with a Notice that asserts the
statutory ‘rights’ and employer
obligations, runs counter to
constitutional views long protected by
the Supreme Court.’’ The Center also
argues that the ‘‘proposed poster would
impede the employer’s statutory right to
express itself on its own property.’’
Along these same lines, the National
Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation, Inc. and others on whose
behalf it writes contend that ‘‘the
Board’s proposal for forced speech
favoring unionization directly conflicts
with the First Amendment and
longstanding federal labor policy under
Section 8(c) that employers and unions
should be able to choose themselves
what to say about unionization.’’ These
concerns were echoed by the National
Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.
In addition, two attorneys affiliated with
Pilchak Cohen & Tice, P.C., which they
describe as ‘‘a management-side labor
and employment law firm,’’ argue that
the notice-posting requirement
‘‘tramples upon employers’ Free Speech
rights by regulating the content of
information that employers are required
to tell employees and by compelling
them to post the Notice containing prounion
NLRA rights, when it is almost
assuredly not the employers’ prerogative
to do so.’’ The Independent Association
of Bakers goes further and characterizes
the regulation as an unconstitutional
‘‘gag order’’ that ‘‘prohibits the
employer from telling the truth about
the impact a union might pose to his
business.’’ The Board rejects these
arguments.
As an initial matter, requiring a notice
of employee rights to be posted does not
violate the First Amendment, which
protects the freedom of speech. Indeed,
this rule does not involve employer
speech at all. The government, not the
employer, will produce and supply
posters informing employees of their
legal rights. The government has sole
responsibility for the content of those
posters, and the poster explicitly states
that it is an ‘‘official Government
Notice’’; nothing in the poster is
attributed to the employer. In fact, an
employer has no obligation beyond
putting up this government poster.
These same considerations were present
in Lake Butler Apparel Co. v. Secretary
of Labor, 519 F.2d 84, 89 (5th Cir. 1975),
where the Fifth Circuit rejected as
‘‘nonsensical’’ an employer’s First
Amendment challenge to the
Occupational Safety and Health Act
requirement that it post an ‘‘information
sign’’ similar to the one at issue here. As
in Lake Butler, an employer subject to
the Board’s rule retains the right to
‘‘differ with the wisdom of * * * this
requirement even to the point * * * of
challenging its validity. * * * But the
First Amendment which gives him the
full right to contest validity to the bitter
end cannot justify his refusal to post a
notice * * * thought to be essential.’’
Id.; see also Stockwell Mfg. Co. v. Usery,
536 F.2d 1306, 1309–10 (10th Cir. 1976)
(dicta) (rejecting a constitutional
challenge to a requirement that an
employer post a copy of an OSHA
citation).
But even if the Board’s notice-posting
requirement is construed to compel
employer speech, the Supreme Court
has recognized that governments have
‘‘substantial leeway in determining
appropriate information disclosure
requirements for business
corporations.’’ Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v.
Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 475 U.S. 1, 15 n.12
(1985). This discretion is particularly
wide when the government requires
information disclosures relevant to the
employment relationship. Thus, as the
D.C. Circuit has observed, ‘‘an
employer’s right to silence is sharply
constrained in the labor context, and
leaves it subject to a variety of burdens
to post notices of rights and risks.’’
UAW-Labor Employment & Training
Corp. v. Chao, 325 F.3d 360, 365 (D.C.
Cir. 2003) (UAW v. Chao) (citing Lake
Butler, 519 F.2d at 89). Accordingly, the
Board’s notice-posting requirement is
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
not susceptible to a First Amendment
challenge. 44
The Board is equally satisfied that the
rule does not violate NLRA Section 8(c),
29 U.S.C. 158(c), which creates a safe
harbor for noncoercive speech in the
unfair labor practice area. Specifically,
Section 8(c) shields from unfair labor
practice liability ‘‘[t]he expressing of
any views, argument or opinion,’’
provided that ‘‘such expression contains
no threat of reprisal or force or promise
of benefit.’’ Id. (emphasis added). A
government poster containing accurate,
factual information about employees’
legal rights ‘‘merely states what the law
requires.’’ Lake Butler, 519 F.2d at 89.
For that reason, ‘‘[t]he posting of the
notice does not by any stretch of the
imagination reflect one way or the other
on the views of the employer.’’ Id. 45
44 The decision of the intermediate state court in
Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission,
30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 395 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994), rev’d on
other grounds, 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996), lends no
support to arguments challenging these regulations
on First Amendment grounds. There, the California
Court of Appeal held that a landlord’s right to
freedom of speech was ‘‘implicate[d],’’ id. at 401–
02, by a state fair housing agency’s remedial order
requiring her to sign, post, and distribute notices
‘‘setting out the provisions of [the fair housing
statute], the outcome of th[e] case, and the
statement that [she] practices equal housing
opportunity.’’ 913 P.2d at 914. The Smith case is
not persuasive here because the notice at issue in
Smith would not merely have set forth the rights
of prospective buyers or renters but also would
have contained a signed statement from the
landlord which would have given the false
appearance that she agreed with the state’s fair
housing ‘‘concepts and rules,’’ despite her religious
beliefs to the contrary. 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 401. That
feature of the case has no parallel here. Here, by
contrast, employers are not required to sign the
informational notice, and as noted, nothing in the
poster is attributed to them. The Board further notes
that the Smith decision is not authoritative because
it was superseded by the California Supreme
Court’s grant of review in that case. See 913 P.2d
at 916 n.*.
45 The Employers Association of New Jersey is
therefore off the mark when it argues that the
notice-posting requirement is preempted under the
principles of Lodge 76, International Ass’n of
Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Wisconsin
Employment Relations Commission, 427 U.S. 132
(1976), as an attempt to regulate employer speech
‘‘about unionization and collective bargaining.’’ As
explained above, the employer’s choice whether to
express its own views, arguments, or opinions is
wholly unaffected by a requirement to post a
government-provided notice summarizing what the
law requires. Indeed, consistent with both
Machinists and the policy of Section 8(c) ‘‘‘to
encourage free debate on issues dividing labor and
management,’’’ Brown, 554 U.S. at 67 (quoting Linn
v. United Plant Guard Workers, Local 114, 383 U.S.
53, 62 (1966)), employers remain free under this
rule—as they have in the past—to express
noncoercive views regarding the exercise of these
rights as well as others. See, e.g., United Techs.
Corp., 274 N.L.R.B. 609, 609, 618–20, 624–26
(1985), enforced sub nom. NLRB v. Pratt & Whitney
Air Craft Div.v., United Techs. Corp., 789 F.2d 121
(2d Cir. 1986); Warrensburg Bd. & Paper Corp., 143
N.L.R.B. 398, 398–99 (1963), enforced, 340 F.2d 920
(2d Cir. 1965). For this reason, the Board finds it
unnecessary to adopt the proposal made by the
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54013
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
But even if the new rule is understood
to compel employer speech, Section 8(c)
‘‘‘merely implements the First
Amendment.’’’ Brown, 554 U.S. at 67
(quoting NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co.,
395 U.S. 575, 617 (1969)). Thus, if a
First Amendment challenge to the rule
must fail, so too must a challenge based
on Section 8(c). Such was the holding
of the D.C. Circuit in UAW v. Chao.
There, the court was presented with a
preemption argument, grounded in
Section 8(c), challenging a Federal
procurement regulation that required
contractors to post a notice informing
their employees of certain NLRA rights.
The D.C. Circuit interpreted Section 8(c)
as coextensive with the scope of free
speech rights protected by the First
Amendment and upheld the
procurement regulation in light of wellestablished
free speech jurisprudence in
the labor context. See 325 F.3d at 365.
3. Lack of Contemporaneity With the
Enactment of the NLRA
Several comments attack the noticeposting
regulation for its lack of
contemporaneity with the enactment of
the NLRA. For example, many
comments criticize the regulation by
noting that ‘‘this is a new rule
interpreted into the Act 75 years after its
passage.’’ The Board rejects these
contentions for two reasons.
First, the Supreme Court has
repeatedly ‘‘instructed that ‘neither
antiquity nor contemporaneity with [a]
statute is a condition of [a regulation’s]
validity.’’’ Mayo, 131 S. Ct. at 712
(alterations in original) (quoting Smiley
v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 517 U.S. 735,
740 (1996)); see also Smiley, 517 U.S. at
740 (deferring to a regulation ‘‘issued
more than 100 years after the
enactment’’ of the statutory provision
that the regulation construed). Second,
the argument fails to consider that much
has changed since 1935, the year the
NLRA was enacted. Unionization rates
are one example. As pointed out in the
NPRM and as confirmed by comments
submitted by the Association of
Corporate Counsel’s Employment and
Labor Law Committee, unionization
rates increased during the early years of
the Act, peaking at around 35 percent of
the workforce in the mid-1950s. But
since then, the share of the workforce
represented by labor unions has
Pilchak attorneys to revise the rule to specify that
employers ‘‘may post a notice of equal dignity
which advises employees of * * * additional rights
and realities.’’ Alternatively, the Pilchak attorneys
propose that the Board amend the rule to permit
employers to ‘‘alter the Poster and include
additional rights.’’ Adopting this suggestion would
compromise the integrity of the notice as a
communication from the government. It, too, is
therefore rejected.
plummeted to approximately 8 percent.
As a result, fewer employees today have
direct, everyday access to an important
source of information regarding NLRA
rights and the Board’s ability to enforce
those rights.
As noted above, ‘‘[t]he responsibility
to adapt the Act to changing patterns of
industrial life is entrusted to the Board.’’
J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. at 266. It
would therefore be an abdication of that
responsibility for the Board to decline to
adopt this rule simply because of its
recent vintage. Accordingly, the Board
finds such arguments unpersuasive.
4. Comparison With Other Statutes That
Contain Notice-Posting Requirements
Many comments note, as the Board
did in the NPRM, that several other
labor and employment statutes enacted
by Congress contain express noticeposting
provisions. See 75 FR 80411
(listing such statutes). Though a few
such comments, such as those of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
applaud the Board for ‘‘fill[ing] this
glaring and indefensible gap,’’ the bulk
of these comments instead argue that
the lack of a parallel statutory provision
in the NLRA negates the existence of
Board authority to issue this rule.
The Board notes that inferences
gleaned from side-by-side comparisons
to other statutes have diminished force
when an agency uses its gap-filling
authority under Chevron. There are
many possible reasons why Congress
did not include an express noticeposting
provision in the NLRA.
‘‘Perhaps that body consciously desired
the [agency] to strike the balance at this
level * * *; perhaps it simply did not
consider the question at this level; and
perhaps Congress was unable to forge a
coalition on either side of the question
* * *.’’ Chevron, 467 U.S. at 865. But,
‘‘[f]or judicial purposes, it matters not
which of these things occurred.’’ Id.
Indeed, the central premise behind
Chevron and its progeny is that agencies
should be allowed reasonable latitude to
fill gaps arising from congressional
silence or ambiguity. Accordingly, ‘‘the
contrast between Congress’s mandate in
one context with its silence in another
suggests not a prohibition but simply a
decision not to mandate any solution in
the second context, i.e., to leave the
question to agency discretion.’’ Cheney
R.R. Co. v. ICC, 902 F.2d 66, 69 (D.C.
Cir. 1990) (labeling the expressio unius
est exclusio alterius canon ‘‘an
especially feeble helper’’ in Chevron
cases).
Arguments contrasting the NLRA with
other federal enactments that contain
notice-posting requirements might have
some persuasive force if there were
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
evidence that Congress had considered
and rejected inserting such a
requirement into the Act. However,
nothing in the legislative history of the
Act so indicates. Indeed, there is not the
slightest hint that the omission of a
notice-posting requirement was the
product of legislative compromise and
therefore implies congressional rejection
of the idea. Cf. Ind. Prot. & Advocacy
Servs. v. Ind. Family & Soc. Servs.
Admin., 603 F.3d 365, 384–85 (7th Cir.
2010) (en banc) (Posner, J., concurring)
(inferring a private right of action from
statutory silence in a case where such
silence was not the product of
‘‘legislative compromise’’). For these
reasons, the Board rejects the Motor and
Equipment Manufacturers Association’s
unsupported suggestion that there has
been an affirmative ‘‘legislative
determination not to include a posting
requirement by employers that have not
violated the Act.’’
A number of comments point out that
Congress included a general noticeposting
provision in the Railway Labor
Act (RLA), which predates the NLRA.
Given the relative proximity of these
two enactments, some comments regard
the absence of a notice-posting
provision in the NLRA as strong
evidence that Congress did not intend
for there to be one. For reasons just
explained, the Board does not find a
side-by-side comparison with the RLA
availing. In addition, the Board notes
that although the NLRA and the RLA
share several common features, the
NLRA was not perfectly modeled after
the RLA. See Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v.
Chi. River & Ind. R.R. Co., 353 U.S. 30,
31 n.2 (1957) (‘‘The relationship of labor
and management in the railroad
industry has developed on a pattern
different from other industries. The
fundamental premises and principles of
the Railway Labor Act are not the same
as those which form the basis of the
National Labor Relations Act * * *.’’).
Finally, the Board notes that other
federal departments and agencies have
not understood Congress’s failure to
include an express provision containing
a notice-posting requirement in a federal
labor or employment statute as a bar to
such a regulatory requirement. Like the
NLRA, the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), which was passed in 1938, does
not contain a provision requiring
employers to post a notice of pertinent
employee rights. Yet the Department of
Labor adopted a notice requirement now
codified at 29 CFR 516.4. Furthermore,
the Board is unaware of any challenge
to the Labor Department’s authority to
promulgate or enforce the FLSA notice
requirement, which has been in effect
for over 60 years. See 14 FR 7516 (Dec.
54014 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
16, 1949), promulgating 29 CFR 516.18,
the predecessor to 29 CFR 516.4.
5. The Teamsters 357 Decision
In response to the NPRM, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce submitted a
comment that questions ‘‘how the
proposal can be said to be consistent
with’’ the Supreme Court’s decision in
Local 357, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters v. NLRB, 365 U.S. 667 (1961).
Specifically, the Chamber accuses the
Board of ignoring the Court’s
admonition in that case warning that
‘‘[w]here * * * Congress has aimed its
sanctions only at specific discriminatory
practices, the Board cannot go farther
and establish a broader, more pervasive
regulatory scheme.’’ Id. at 675. The
Chamber reads this statement out of
context.
To understand why the Board
disagrees with the Chamber’s view,
further explanation of Teamsters 357 is
necessary. In that case, the Supreme
Court rejected the Board’s conclusion
that a union had committed an unfair
labor practice by operating an exclusive
hiring hall pursuant to an agreement
that contained a nondiscrimination
clause but not three additional clauses
that the Board had previously declared
in its Mountain Pacific decision to be
necessary to prevent ‘‘ ‘unlawful
encouragement of union membership.’ ’’
Id. at 671 (quoting Mountain Pacific
Chapter, 119 NLRB 883, 897 (1958)).
The Court first noted that Congress had
examined the operation of hiring halls
and had decided not to ban them. Id. at
673–74. Next, the Court observed that
NLRA Section 8(a)(3) ‘‘ ‘does not outlaw
all encouragement or discouragement of
membership in labor organizations; only
such as is accomplished by
discrimination is prohibited.’ ’’ Id. at
674–75 (emphasis added) (quoting
Radio Officers’ Union v. NLRB, 347 U.S.
17, 42–43 (1954)). Since the hiring hall
agreement at issue in Teamsters 357
‘‘specifically provide[d] that there will
be no discrimination * * * because of
the presence or absence of union
membership,’’ the Court determined
that the Board was attempting to protect
against nondiscriminatory
encouragement of union membership.
Id. at 675. This was impermissible
because ‘‘[w]here * * * Congress has
aimed its sanctions only at specific
discriminatory practices, the Board
cannot go farther and establish a
broader, more pervasive regulatory
scheme.’’ Id. at 676.
Properly understood, Teamsters 357
does not preclude the Board from
issuing the notice posting rule. The
union had not committed an unfair
labor practice in that case because its
hiring hall agreement did not encourage
or discourage union membership by
‘‘discrimination.’’ See id. at 674–75. By
faulting the union for not including in
its agreement clauses that the Board’s
Mountain Pacific rule had declared
necessary to prevent ‘‘ ‘unlawful
encouragement of union membership,’ ’’
id. at 671 (quoting Mountain Pacific
Chapter, 119 NLRB at 897), the Board
had attempted to regulate hiring halls in
a manner that was facially inconsistent
with the discrimination requirement
embedded in NLRA Section 8(a)(3) and
(b)(2). Accordingly, the Chamber makes
too much of the Court’s statement
prohibiting the Board from
‘‘establish[ing] a broader, more
pervasive regulatory scheme’’ when
‘‘specific discriminatory practices’’ have
already been outlawed. Id. at 676. By
that, the Court simply meant to remind
the Board that it may not
administratively amend Section 8(a)(3)
and (b)(2) to prohibit nondiscriminatory
activity that might be viewed as
undesirable because those statutory
sections are clearly aimed only at
‘‘specific discriminatory practices.’’
Id. 46
This rulemaking does not involve
those provisions of the NLRA that
Teamsters 357 addressed. Accordingly,
the Board does not view that case as
controlling the outcome of this
proceeding.
6. Miscellaneous Matters
The Center on National Labor Policy,
Inc., argues that the Board ‘‘must be
mindful of the Supreme Court’s
admonition in Lechmere[, Inc.] v. NLRB,
502 U.S. 527, 534 (1992), that an
employer possesses First Amendment
rights to its property.’’ The Board
disagrees that the property rights
discussed in Lechmere emanate from
the First Amendment, see Thunder
Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200,
217 n.21 (1994) (‘‘The right of
employers to exclude union organizers
from their private property emanates
from state common law * * *.’’), and to
the extent that the Center’s reference to
the First Amendment asserts a conflict
between these regulations and
employers’ right to free speech, that
argument is rejected for reasons
explained above. After quoting
extensively from Lechmere, the Center
next contends that ‘‘if a union has no
access to company property to
communicate with employees, neither
46 To the extent that the Board espoused a
contrary view of Teamsters 357 in a prior
rulemaking proceeding, that view is abandoned. See
Union Dues Regulation, 57 FR 43635, 43637–38
(Sept. 22, 1992), withdrawn, 61 FR 11167 (Mar. 19,
1996).
VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
does the Board without Section 10(c)
authority.’’ The Board rejects this
argument because it fails to recognize
the important substantive difference
between the conduct at issue in
Lechmere, which involved ‘‘ ‘trespassory
organizational activity’ ’’ by
nonemployees on the employer’s
grounds, id. at 535 (quoting Sears,
Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Dist.
Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180, 205
(1978)), and the regulations here which
involve nothing more than the
employer’s responsibility to post an
official notice of legal rights.
The Portland Cement Association
(PCA) comments that the Board’s failure
to place the three law review articles
that the Board cited to the NPRM 47 in
the administrative docket is arbitrary
and capricious. Although the Board
provided the legal citations for these
articles, PCA believes that it should not
have to pay an electronic legal reporting
service to access the material. The Board
has placed these articles in the hard
copy docket, but has not uploaded these
articles to the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, because
such an action could violate copyright
laws. 48
Finally, one comment contends that
requiring employers to set aside wall
space for posting the notices violates the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution. The comment
cites no authority for this proposition,
which would seem to invalidate the
notice-posting requirements under all
other Federal and state workplace
statutes. Accordingly, the Board rejects
this contention.
In conclusion, the Board believe that
it has fully demonstrated that it
possesses sufficient statutory authority
to enact the final rule, and therefore that
it is not ‘‘in excess of statutory
jurisdiction’’ or ‘‘short of statutory
right’’ within the meaning of the
Administrative Procedure Act, Section
706(2)(C), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(C).
C. Factual Support for the Rule
As stated above, the Board found that
the notice posting rule is needed
because it believes that many employees
are unaware of their NLRA rights and
therefore cannot effectively exercise
those rights. The Board based this
finding on several factors: the
comparatively small percentage of
private sector employees who are
represented by unions and thus have
ready access to information about the
47 See NPRM, 75 FR 80411 and fn. 3 above.
48 The Board has also placed the other non-case
materials cited to in this final rule into the hard
copy docket.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54015
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
NLRA; the high percentage of
immigrants in the labor force, who are
likely to be unfamiliar with workplace
rights in the United States; studies
indicating that employees and high
school students about to enter the work
force are generally uninformed about
labor law; and the absence of a
requirement that, except in very limited
circumstances, employers or anyone
else inform employees about their
NLRA rights. 75 FR 80411.
A large number of comments contend
that the Board failed to demonstrate the
necessity of the notice posting rule.
They challenge each of the premises
(except the last) underlying the Board’s
belief that employees are generally
unaware of their NLRA rights.
Many comments assert that, contrary
to the Board’s belief, the right to join a
union is widely known and understood
by employees. For example:
—I believe the majority of employees know
about labor unions and how to form a
union, and this poster is unnecessary. 49
—[I]t is hard to imagine that there are many
in the US who do not know that they can
try to join a union.
—The fact of the matter is that if a group of
employees are upset enough with their
current management that they feel they
need union representation, they already
know what they need to do as a recourse.
And if they do not immediately know how
to respond, there are plenty of resources for
them. 50
—We, the employees, know the unions exist,
* * * If the employees want to know about
unions, they should research it themselves.
It is not as though the information is not
readily available.
Some posit that comparatively few
private sector employees are
represented by unions not because
employees do not know that they can
join unions, but because they have
consciously rejected union
representation for any number of
reasons (e.g., they do not believe that
unions can help them; they do not want
to pay union dues; they deem union
representation unnecessary in light of
other workplace protection statutes). For
example:
—Is it not just as probable that people clearly
understand unions, and they have decided
they want no part of them?
—Labor unions charge approximately 1.3%
of pre-tax earnings for monthly dues. Many
workers, especially those who lost their
good paying jobs during this recession and
have found new jobs at $10.00-$11.00 per
hour wages, need the dues money
themselves, in order to support their
families.
49 Comment of the Employers Association.
50 Comment of Malt-O-Meal Company (Malt-O-
Meal).
—Membership is down because so many of
the good things unions fought for a long
time ago have been legislated, at either the
Federal or State level, and so the need for
unions has declined. 51
—[M]ost employees are very aware of their
rights to unionize and many employees
choose not to do so because of the rights
they already have under our federal and
state laws.
—In fact, one could say that the NLRA and
other employment laws have succeeded to
the degree that unions are NOT necessary
in today’s work environment. 52
A few comments question the Board’s
belief that immigrant workers are
unfamiliar with their workplace
rights. 53 Several comments argue that
the NLRA has been in effect for nearly
76 years, which is sufficient time for
employees to learn about its
provisions. 54
A number of comments argue that the
studies cited in the NPRM are from the
late 1980s and early 1990s and are
therefore out of date 55 (and also, some
say, poorly supported). 56 Moreover,
those studies, whatever their value
when published, predate the wide use
of the internet. Now there are many
online sources of information
concerning unions and union
organizing, including the Board’s own
Web site. According to these comments,
it should not be necessary to require
employers to post notices of NLRA
rights because employees who are
interested in learning about unions can
quickly and easily find such
information online. 57 One comment,
like some others, argues that ‘‘If it is so
important that employees know their
rights under the NLRB it should be the
government or union whose
responsibility it is to inform them.’’ 58
Two comments suggest that the Board
conduct a mass media informational
campaign to that end, and one notes that
the Board has in fact recently increased
51 Comment of Tecton Products.
52 Comment of Printing and Imaging Association
of MidAmerica (Printing and Imaging Ass’n).
53 See, e.g., comment of the Printing and Imaging
Ass’n.
54 See, e.g., comment of Coalition for a
Democratic Workplace.
55 See, e.g., comments of Printing Industries of
America and the Portland Cement Association.
56 See, e.g., comments of Cass County Electric
Cooperative and Pilchak Cohen & Tice, P.C.
57 As one person states, ‘‘The internet has long
ago replaced lunch room bulletin board postings as
the means by which employees learn of and
exercise their rights.’’
58 Such comments appear to misunderstand that
by this rule, the Board is indeed seeking to inform
employees of the provisions of the NLRA, using the
most accessible venues to reach them, their
workplaces.
Other comments question why this rule does not
mandate notice posting by governmental employers.
The NLRA does not cover such employers. See
Section 2(2), 29 U.S.C. 152(2).
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
its public information efforts. 59 One
comment urges the Board to conduct a
study to ascertain current employees’
level of NLRA knowledge before
imposing a notice posting requirement.
In contrast, as discussed in more
detail below, numerous comments from
individuals, union organizers, attorneys
representing unions, and worker
assistance organizations agree with the
Board that most employees are
unfamiliar with their NLRA rights.
Immigrant rights organizations state that
immigrant workers largely do not know
about their rights.
After careful consideration of the
comments on both sides of this issue,
the Board believes that many employees
are unaware of their NLRA rights and
that a notice posting requirement is a
reasonable means of promoting greater
knowledge among employees. To the
extent that employees’ general level of
knowledge is uncertain, the Board
believes that the potential benefit of a
notice posting requirement outweighs
the modest cost to employers. Certainly,
the Board has been presented with no
evidence persuasively demonstrating
that knowledge of NLRA rights is
widespread among employees.
The comments asserting that the right
to join a union is widely known cite
little, if any, support for that assertion.
By contrast, many of the comments
contending that employees are
unfamiliar with their NLRA rights base
their statements on personal experience
or on extensive experience representing
or otherwise assisting employees. Many
individual workers, commenting on the
rule, indicate their personal experiences
with the lack of NLRA knowledge and
concurrent strong support for the rule.
For example:
—Even though most of my coworkers and
supervisors were highly intelligent people,
it is my experience that most workers are
almost totally unaware of their rights under
the NLRA.
—Knowing that there is a federal agency out
there that will protect the rights of working
people to organize is essential to the
exercise of those rights.
—I had no idea that I had the right to join
a union, and was often told by my
employer that I could not do so. * * * I
think employers should be required to post
notices so that all employees may make an
informed decision about their rights to join
a union. 60
—Workers have rights and they have the
right to know them. 61
—[T]here is a lot of ignorance among young
workers and veteran workers alike with
regard to knowledge of their right to
59 Comment of Fisher & Phillips, LLP.
60 Comment of Member, Local 150, Operating
Engineers.
61 Comment of Organizer, IBEW.
54016 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
organize. This is not a cure for employer
intimidation, * * * but it is a step in the
right direction.
—As an employee at will, I was not aware
of my rights to form a union or any rights
that I may have had under the NLRA. 62
—I worked in the construction materials
testing industry for about eight years.
During that time I had no idea I had the
right to join a union. 63
—As a working class citizen, I am well aware
of just how rare it is for my fellow workers
to know their rights. For that reason, this
is a rule that is extremely overdue. * * *.
A sampling of comments from labor
attorneys, workers’ organizations, and
labor organizations is consistent with
these employees’ comments:
—It is my experience that upwards of 95%
of employees have no idea what their
rights are with respect to labor unions. 64
—In fact, I have had many employees over
the years tell me that their employers have
told them that they do not allow unions at
their workplace. 65
—Workers today do not know what their
rights are under the NLRA. As a Union
organizer with more than 20 years of
experience, without exception, every
worker I encounter thinks that it is
perfectly legal for their employer to fire
them simply for saying the word union, or
even to speak with other employees at
work about general working conditions.
The protections afforded workers to engage
in protected concerted activity around
workplace issues is unknown to the
majority of workers today. 66
—It is the experience of [Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) Local 615] that
many employees are woefully unaware of
their rights under the NLRA and that that
lack of knowledge makes employees
vulnerable when they desire to address
their wages and working conditions with
the employers. 67
—I have participated in hundreds of
organizing campaigns involving thousands
of employees. In my experience, most
people had no idea what their rights were
to organize or join unions. 68
Some unions also assert that even
unionized employees often do not have
a clear understanding of the NLRA. One
union staff representative writes that
‘‘there seems to be a disconnect, most of
our membership does not know a thing
about NLRA.’’ 69 Another union steward
comments similarly:
I saw how union members were often
unaware of their rights unless the union
62 Comment of International Staff Representative,
Steelworkers.
63 Comment of Member, Local 150, Operating
Engineers.
64 Comment of Organizer, Local 150, Operating
Engineers.
65 Comment of Strokoff and Cowden.
66 Comment of Organizer, Teamsters, Local 117.
67 Comment of SEIU Local 615.
68 Comment of Financial Secretary, Local 150,
Operating Engineers.
69 Comment of Staff Representative, Steelworkers.
specifically did outreach and member
education, or unless the employee ran into a
problem and came to a steward for
assistance. * * *
Notice to employees, however, could
provide a starting point for those employees
to try to assert rights that they currently have
on paper but often do not have in practice.
Several immigrant workers’
organizations comment on the difficulty
that this population has in
understanding their rights and accessing
the proper help when needed. 70 These
organizations note that laws in the
immigrants’ home countries may be
quite different from those of the United
States, and the high barrier that lack of
fluency in English creates in making
these persons aware of their rights
under the NLRA. 71 These organizations
also contend that because guestworkers
in particular can work only for the
employer that requested their visa, they
are extremely vulnerable to labor
violations, and that these employers
routinely misrepresent the existence of
NLRA rights. 72 The National Day
Laborers Organizing Network claims
that ‘‘most workers are not aware of
their right to organize.’’
One immigrant construction worker,
commenting favorably on the proposed
rule, explains that she learned English
after coming to the United States from
Poland: ‘‘While working as a testing
technician, I had no idea I had the right
to join a union.’’ She writes:
I think a government written notice posted
in the workplace would be a critical source
of information for employees who want to
join a union. Especially in this industry
where many people like myself are foreign
born, there is a language barrier that adds to
the difficulty in understanding our legal
rights. I take government posted notices
seriously and believe other people do as
well. 73
Significantly, the Board received
numerous comments opposing the rule
precisely because the commenters
believe that the notice will increase the
level of knowledge about the NLRA on
the part of employees. Specifically, they
predict that the rule will lead to
increased unionization and create
alleged adverse effects on employers
and the economy generally. For
example, Baker and Daniels LLP
comments that as more employees
become aware of their NLRA rights, they
will file more unfair labor practice
70 See e.g., comments of National Immigration
Law Center and Latino Justice.
71 See, e.g., comment of Friends of Farmworkers,
Inc.
72 Comment of Alliance of Guestworkers for
Dignity.
73 Comment of Instructor, Apprenticeship and
Skill Improvement Program, Local 150, Operating
Engineers.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
charges and elect unions to serve as
their collective-bargaining
representatives. But fear that employees
may exercise their statutory rights is not
a valid reason for not informing them of
their rights.
Moreover, the NLRA protects the right
to join a union and to refrain from doing
so and the notice so states. In addition,
the NLRA confers and protects other
rights besides the right to join or refrain
from joining unions. Section 7 provides
that employees have the right ‘‘to engage
in other concerted activities for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection[.]’’ Such
protected concerted activities include
concertedly complaining or petitioning
to management concerning their terms
and conditions of employment; 74
concertedly petitioning government
concerning matters of mutual interest in
the workplace; 75 and concertedly
refusing to work under poor working
conditions. 76 Few if any of the
comments contending that employees
know about their NLRA rights assert
that employees are aware of the right to
engage in such protected concerted
activities in the nonunion setting. By
contrast, as shown above, many
comments favoring the rule report that
nonunion employees are especially
unlikely to be aware of their NLRA
rights.
Although some comments contend
that the articles cited by the Board in
support of its belief that employees are
largely unaware of the NLRA rights are
old and inadequately supported, 77 they
cite no more recent or better supported
studies to the contrary. In addition, the
percentage of the private sector
workforce represented by unions has
declined from about 12 percent in 1989,
about the time the articles cited in the
NPRM were published, to 8 percent
presently; 78 thus, to the extent that lack
of contact with unions contributed to
lack of knowledge of NLRA rights 20
years ago, it probably is even more of a
factor today. 79
74 North Carolina License Plate Agency #18, 346
NLRB 293 (2006), enf’d. 243 F. Appx. 771 (4th Cir.
2007) (unpublished).
75 Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, above, 437 U.S. at 565–
567.
76 NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S.
9, 14 (1962).
77 See comment of Cass County Electric
Cooperative. For example, Professor Morris, author
of two of the articles cited by the Board (as ‘‘see
also’’) listed no authority to support his assertion
that employees lack knowledge about the NLRA.
See Charles J. Morris, ‘‘Renaissance at the NLRB,’’
above at fn. 3; Morris, ‘‘NLRB Protection in the
Nonunion Workplace,’’ above at fn. 3.
78 See DeChiara, ‘‘The Right to Know,’’ above at
fn. 1; 75 FR 80411 fn. 4.
79 The Printing and Imaging Association
discussed these declining rates of unionization, and
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54017
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
In support of their contention that
NLRA rights are widely known among
employees, several comments observe
that the Board’s processes for holding
representation elections and
investigating and remedying unfair
labor practices are invoked tens of
thousands of time a year. 80 That is true.
However, the civilian work force
includes some 108 million workers
potentially subject to the NLRA. 81 Thus,
the number of employees who invoke
the Board’s processes make up only a
small percentage of the covered
workforce. Accordingly, the Board does
not consider the number of times the
Board’s processes are invoked to be
persuasive evidence that workers
generally are aware of their NLRA
rights.
Finally, remarks in multiple opposing
comments strongly suggest that the
commenters themselves do not
understand the basic provisions of the
NLRA:
—If my employees want to join a union they
need to look for a job in a union
company. 82
—[a]nytime one of our independent
tradesmen would like to join the union
they are free to apply and be hired by a
union contractor.
—If a person so desires to be employed by
a union company, they should take their
ass to a union company and apply for a
union job.
—Belonging to a union is a privilege and a
preference—not a right. 83
—If they don’t like the way I treat them, then
go get another job. That is what capitalism
is about. 84
cited Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner’s doctoral
dissertation, ‘‘Seeds of Resurgence: Successful
Union Strategies for Winning Certification Elections
and First Contracts in the 1980s and Beyond,’’
(available at http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=reports&
sei-redir=1#search=‘‘Kate+Bronfenbrenner,
+Uneasy+terrain:+The+
impact+of+capital+mobility+on+
workers,+wages,+and+union’’) to argue that the
higher win rates for unions in elections involving
both immigrant and older workers argued against
the need for the proposed rule.
The Board is not addressing the many debated
causes of the declining rates of private sector
unionization in the United States. This rule simply
accepts those rates as given, and seeks to increase
the knowledge of NLRA provisions among those
without readily available sources of reliable
information on these provisions.
80 See, e.g., comment of Desert Terrace Healthcare
Center.
81 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic News
Release, Table B–1, ‘‘Employees on nonfarm
payrolls by industry sector and selected industry
detail,’’ May 3, 2011 (seasonally adjusted data for
March 2011) http://data.bls.gov/timeseries
LNS11300000?years_option=specific_years
&include_graphs=true&to_year=2010
&from_year=1948 (last visited June 6, 2011).
82 Comment of P & L Fire Protection, Inc.
83 Comment of OKC Tea Party.
84 Comment of Montana Records Management,
LLP.
—We are not anti-union; but feel as
Americans, we must protect our right not
to be signatory to a third party in our
business. 85
—If one desires to be a part of a union, he
or she is free to apply to those companies
that operate with that form of
relationship. 86
—I also believe employees already have such
notice by understanding they retain the
right to change employers whenever they
so choose. 87
These comments reinforce the Board’s
belief that, in addition to informing
employees of their NLRA rights so that
they may better exercise those rights,
posting the notice may have the
beneficial side effect of informing
employers concerning the NLRA’s
requirements. 88
As to the contention that information
concerning unions is widely available
on the internet, including on the Board’s
Web site, the Board responds that not all
employees have ready access to the
internet. Moreover, it is reasonable to
assume that an employee who has no
idea that he or she has a right to join a
union, attempt to organize his
employer’s workforce, or engage in
other protected concerted activities,
would be less likely to seek such
information than one who is aware of
such rights and wants to learn more
about them. 89 The Board is pleased that
it has received a large number of
inquiries at its Web site seeking
information concerning NLRA rights,
but it is under no illusion that that
information will reach more than a
small fraction of the workforce in the
foreseeable future.
Several comments assert that, in any
event, requiring the posting of notices
85 Comment of Humphrey & Associates, Inc.
86 Comment of Medina Excavating, Inc.
87 Comment of Olsen Tool & Plastics, Co.
88 And as one union official writes:
Having been active in labor relations for 30 years
I can assure you that both employees and employers
are confused about their respective rights under the
NLRA. Even union officers often do not understand
their rights. Members and non-members rarely
understand their rights. Often labor management
disputes arise because one or both sides are misinformed
about their rights. Often the employer
takes an action it truly believes is within its rights
when it is not.
Comment of Civil Service Employees Association.
89 Thus, the many comments that assert that
employees can just use Internet search engines to
find out about unions (see, e.g., comments of
Winseda Corp. Homestead Village, Inc.),
misapprehend the breadth of the rights of which the
Board seeks to apprise all employees. As stated
above, Section 7 is not merely about the right to join
or refrain from joining a labor organization, but
more broadly protects the right of employees to
engage in ‘‘concerted activities’’ for the purpose of
‘‘mutual aid or protection.’’ It is this right that is
the most misunderstood and simply not subject to
an easy Internet search by employees who may have
no idea of what terms to use, or even that such a
right might be protected at all.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
will not be effective in informing
employees of their rights, because
employees will simply ignore the
notices, as the comments contend they
ignore other workplace postings.
‘‘Posters are an ineffective means of
educating workers and are rarely read
by employees.’’ 90 Other comments
argue that adding one more notice to the
many that are already mandated under
other statutes will simply create more
‘‘visual clutter’’ that contributes to
employees’ disinclination to pay
attention to posted notices. As one
employer stated, ‘‘My bulletin boards
are filled with required notifications
that nobody reads. In the past 15 years,
not one of our 200 employees has ever
asked about any of these required
postings. I have never seen anyone ever
read one of them.’’ 91 Another wrote,
‘‘Employers are already required to post
so many notices that these notices have
lost any semblance of effectiveness as a
governmental communication channel.’’
To these comments, the Board
responds that the experiences of the
commenters is apparently not universal;
other comments cited above contend
that employees are more knowledgeable
about their rights under statutes
requiring the posting of notices
summarizing those rights than about
their NLRA rights. Moreover, not every
employee has to read workplace notices
for those notices to be effective. If only
one employee of a particular employer
reads the Board’s notice and conveys
what he or she has read to the other
employees, that may be enough to pique
their interest in learning more about
their NLRA rights. In addition, the
Board is mandating electronic notice to
employees on an internet or intranet
site, when the employer customarily
communicates with its employees about
personnel rules or policies in that way,
in order to reach those who read paper
notices and those who read electronic
postings. As for the comment that
argues that the Board can use public
service announcements or advertising to
reach employees, the Board believes
that it makes much more sense to seek
to reach directly the persons to whom
the Act applies, in the location where
they are most likely to hear about their
other employment rights, the
workplace. 92
90 Comment of Riverbend Community Mental
Health.
91 Comment of Farmers Cooperative Compress.
92 Printing Industries of America uses election
data to argue that the Labor Department’s notice
posting rule for Federal contractors has not been
effective because the rate of elections has not
increased. It is unclear whether any meaningful
conclusion can be drawn from election data for only
Continued
54018 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Some comments argue that the
Board’s notice posting rule does not go
far enough to effectuate the NLRA. One
labor attorney argues that the Board
should require annual trainings for
supervisors and captive audience
meetings where employees are read
their rights by supervisors and Board
agents and the employees would have to
acknowledge receiving those notices. 93
The same comment suggests banning
captive audience meetings by
employers. The comment concludes that
the NPRM ‘‘doesn’t go anywhere near
far enough. It is, however, an important
and worthwhile advancement.’’ 94
Another comment also suggests that
annual, mandatory training classes for
employees would be desirable. 95 The
Board believes that this Rule strikes the
proper balance in communicating
necessary information about the NLRA
to employees.
For all the foregoing reasons, the
Board is persuaded that many private
sector employees are unaware of their
NLRA rights. 96
III. Summary of Final Rule and
Discussion of Related Comments
The Board’s rule, which requires
employers subject to the NLRA to post
notices of employee rights under the
NLRA, will be set forth in Chapter 1,
Part 104 of Volume 29 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR). Subpart A of
the rule sets out definitions; prescribes
the size, form, and content of the
employee notice; and lists the categories
of employers that are not covered by the
rule. Subpart B sets out standards and
a few months, especially since the number of
contractors covered by the Labor Department’s rule
is only a small fraction of the number of employers
subject to the NLRA. In any event, the Board does
not believe that that is the proper criterion by
which to measure the rule’s effectiveness. The
purpose of requiring the posting of such notices is
to inform employees of their rights so that they may
exercise them more effectively, not to obtain any
particular result such as the filing of more election
petitions.
The same comment also cites a couple of
textbooks which it asserts are popularly used in
high schools today to argue that labor history is
being taught to today’s students. The Board is
unable to assess the truth of that assertion, but
regardless, it is unclear whether students
necessarily connect this history to their future
rights as employees.
93 Comment of Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld.
94 Id.
95 Comment of Staff Representative, Steelworkers.
96 Accordingly, the Board finds it unnecessary to
conduct a study to determine the extent of
employees’ knowledge of NLRA rights. The Board
further observes that even if only 10 percent of
workers were unaware of those rights, that would
still mean that more than 10 million workers lacked
knowledge of one of their most basic workplace
rights. The Board believes that there is no question
that at least a similar percentage of employees are
unaware of the rights explained in the notice. In the
Board’s view, that justifies issuing the rule.
procedures related to allegations of
noncompliance and enforcement of the
rule. The discussion below is organized
in the same manner and explains the
Board’s reasoning in adopting the
standards and procedures contained in
the regulatory text, including the
Board’s responses to the comments
received.
Subpart A—Definitions, Requirements
for Employee Notice, and Exceptions
From Coverage Definitions
A. The Definitions
For the most part, the definitions
proposed in the rule are taken from
those appearing in Section 2 of the
NLRA, 29 U.S.C. 152. No comments
were received concerning those
definitions, and they are unchanged in
the final rule. A number of comments
were received concerning the definition
of other terms appearing in the rule.
Those comments are addressed below.
B. Requirements for Employee Notice
1. Content Requirements
The notice contains a summary of
employee rights established under the
NLRA. As explained above, the Board
believes that requiring notice of
employee rights is necessary to carry out
the provisions of the NLRA.
Accordingly, § 104.202 of the proposed
rule requires employers subject to the
NLRA to post and maintain the notice
in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are
customarily posted, and to take
reasonable steps to ensure that the
notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material, or
otherwise rendered unreadable.
As stated in the NPRM, the Board
considered the substantive content and
level of detail the notice should contain
regarding NLRA rights. In arriving at the
content of the notice of employee rights,
the Board proposed to adopt the
language of the Department of Labor’s
final rule requiring Federal contractors
to post notices of employees’ NLRA
rights. 29 CFR part 471. In the NPRM,
the Board explained that it tentatively
agreed with the Department of Labor
that neither quoting the statement of
employee rights contained in Section 7
of the NLRA nor briefly summarizing
those rights in the notice would be
likely to effectively inform employees of
their rights. Rather, the language of the
notice should include a more detailed
description of employee rights derived
from Board and court decisions
implementing those rights. The Board
also stated that it saw merit in the
Department of Labor’s judgment that
including in the notice examples, again
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
derived from Board and court decisions,
of conduct that violates the NLRA will
assist employees in understanding their
rights. 75 FR 80412.
Prior to issuing the NPRM, the Board
carefully reviewed the content of the
notice required under the Department of
Labor’s final rule, which was modified
in response to comments from
numerous sources, and tentatively
concluded that that notice explains
employee rights accurately and
effectively without going into excessive
or confusing detail. The Board therefore
found it unnecessary, for purposes of
the proposed rulemaking, to modify the
language of the notice in the Department
of Labor’s final rule. Moreover, the
Board reasoned that because the notice
of employee rights would be the same
under the Board’s proposed rule as
under the Department of Labor’s rule,
Federal contractors that have posted the
Department of Labor’s required notice
would have complied with the Board’s
rule and, so long as that notice is
posted, would not have to post a second
notice. Id.
The proposed notice contained
examples of general circumstances that
constitute violations of employee rights
under the NLRA. Thus, the Board
proposed a notice that provided
employees with more than a
rudimentary overview of their rights
under the NLRA, in a user-friendly
format, while simultaneously not
overwhelming employees with
information that is unnecessary and
distracting in the limited format of a
notice. As explained below, the Board
also tentatively agreed with the
Department of Labor that it is
unnecessary for the notice to include
specifically the right of employees who
are not union members and who are
covered by a contractual union-security
clause to refuse to pay union dues and
fees for any purpose other than
collective bargaining, contract
administration, or grievance adjustment.
See Communications Workers v. Beck,
487 U.S. 735 (1988). Id. at 80412–80413.
The Board specifically invited
comment on the statement of employee
rights proposed for inclusion in the
required notice to employees. In
particular, the Board requested
comment on whether the notice
contains sufficient information of
employee rights under the NLRA;
whether it effectively conveys that
information to employees; and whether
it achieves the desired balance between
providing an overview of employee
rights under the Act and limiting
unnecessary and distracting
information. Id. at 80413.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54019
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
The proposed Appendix to Subpart A
included Board contact information and
basic enforcement procedures to enable
employees to learn more about their
NLRA rights and how to enforce them.
Thus, the required notice confirmed that
unlawful conduct will not be permitted,
provided information about the Board
and about filing a charge with the
Board, and stated that the Board will
prosecute violators of the NLRA. The
notice also indicated that there is a 6-
month statute of limitations for filing
charges with the Board alleging
violations and provided Board contact
information. The Board invited
suggested additions or deletions to these
provisions that would improve the
content of the notice of employee rights.
Id.
The content of the proposed notice
received more comments than any other
single topic in the proposed rule. But of
the thousands of comments that address
the content of the notice, the majority
are either very general, or identical or
nearly identical form letters or
‘‘postcard’’ comments sent in response
to comment initiatives by various
interest groups, including those
representing employers, unions, and
employee rights organizations. Many
comments from both individuals and
organizations offer general support for
the content of the proposed notice,
stating that employee awareness of basic
legal rights will promote a fair and just
workplace, improve employee morale,
and foster workforce stability, among
other benefits. 97 More specifically, one
comment asserts that the proposed
notice ‘‘contains an accurate,
understandable and balanced
presentation of rights.’’ 98 The United
Transportation Union contends that the
‘‘notice presents an understandable,
concise and extremely informative
recitation of workers’ rights, without
getting bogged down in extraneous
language, incomprehensible legalese or
innumerable caveats and exceptions.’’
Other comments were less supportive
of the content of the proposed notice
and the notice-posting requirement in
general. A significant number of
comments, including those from many
individuals, employers, and employer
industry and interest groups, argue that
the content of the notice is not balanced,
and appears to promote unionization
instead of employee freedom of
association. In particular, many
comments state that Section 7 of the
97 See comments of the National Immigration Law
Center, Service Employees International Union, and
Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld.
98 Comment of David Fusco, a labor and
employment attorney.
NLRA includes the right to refrain from
union activity, but claim that this right
is given little attention in comparison to
other rights in the proposed notice.
Several comments also argue that the
proposed notice excludes rights
associated with an anti-union position,
including the right to seek
decertification of a bargaining
representative, the right to abstain from
union membership in ‘‘right-to-work’’
states, and rights associated with the
Supreme Court’s decision in
Communications Workers v. Beck. 99
Comments also suggest that the notice
should include a warning to employees
that unionizing will result in a loss of
the right to negotiate directly with their
employer. 100 Many of these comments
argue that a neutral government position
on unionization would be more
inclusive of anti-union rights. 101
A number of comments address the
issue of complexity, and argue that the
Board’s attempt to summarize the law is
flawed because the Board’s decisional
law is too complex to condense into a
single workplace notice. 102 Some of the
comments addressing this issue note
that NLRA law has been developed over
75 years, and involves interpretations by
both the NLRB and the Federal courts,
sometimes with conflicting results. The
Chamber of Commerce cites the
‘‘NLRB’s Basic Guide to the National
Labor Relations Act: General Principles
of Law Under the Statute and
Procedures of the National Labor
Relations Board’’ (Basic Guide to the
NLRA) (1997), available at http://
www.nlrb.gov/publications/brochures,
to make their point about legal
complexity. In the Foreword to the
Basic Guide to the NLRA, the Board’s
General Counsel states that ‘‘[a]ny effort
to state basic principles of law in a
simple way is a challenging and
unenviable task. This is especially true
about labor law, a relatively complex
field of law.’’ The thrust of these
comments about legal complexity was
that the NLRA is complex, dynamic,
and nuanced, and any attempt to
summarize it in a workplace notice will
result in an oversimplification of the
law and lead to confusion,
misunderstanding, inconsistencies, and
some say, heightened labor-management
antagonism. Moreover, some comments
express concern that Board member
turnover could result in changes to the
99 See comments of Pilchak, Cohen & Tice,
American Trucking Association, and Electrical and
Mechanical Systems Inc.
100 See, e.g. comment of the Heritage Foundation.
101 See, e.g., comment of the National Right to
Work Committee.
102 See, e.g., comment of COLLE, Retail Industry
Leaders Association.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
law, which may require frequent
updates to the notice. 103
Many comments suggest that the
required notice should include only the
specific rights contained in Section 7 of
the NLRA or, at most, the rights and
obligations stated in employee
advisories on the NLRB’s Web site. The
comments favoring a more general
notice suggest that the detailed list of
rights far exceeds the ‘‘short and plain’’
description of rights that the Board has
found sufficient to ‘‘clearly and
effectively inform employees of their
rights under the Act’’ in unfair labor
practice cases. 104 See Ishikawa Gasket
America, Inc., 337 NLRB 175 (2001),
enfd. 354 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2004). A
comment from Fisher & Phillips LLP
argues that, under the Board’s current
remedial practices, only an employer
that egregiously violates the Act on
numerous occasions is required to post
such an inclusive list of rights.
Finally, a number of comments
suggest that the notice should include a
list of employer rights, namely the right
to distribute anti-union literature and
the right to discuss the company’s
position regarding unions.
In addition to the general comments
about the proposed notice, many
comments offer suggestions for specific
revisions to individual provisions
within the five sections of the proposed
notice: the introduction, the statement
of affirmative rights, the examples of
unlawful conduct, the collectivebargaining
provision, and the coverage
information. The following discussion
presents the comments related to
individual provisions of the notice,
followed by the Board’s decisions
regarding the content of the final notice
made in response to those comments.
a. Comments Regarding the Introduction
The introduction to the notice of
rights in the proposed rule stated:
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
guarantees the right of employees to organize
and bargain collectively with their
employers, and to engage in other protected
concerted activity. Employees covered by the
NLRB are protected from certain types of
employer and union misconduct. This Notice
gives you general information about your
rights, and about the obligations of employers
under the NLRA. Contact the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB), the Federal agency
that investigates and resolves complaints
under the NLRA, using the contact
information supplied below, if you have any
questions about specific rights that may
apply in your particular workplace.
103 See comment of Capital Associated Industries,
Inc. and National Association of Manufacturers.
104 See e.g. comments of COLLE and Coalition for
a Democratic Workplace.
54020 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
75 FR 80418–80419 (footnote omitted).
The Board received a few suggestions
for changes to the introduction of the
notice. The first comment suggests
including language stating that
employees are required to contact their
‘‘executive manager’’ or ‘‘administrative
team’’ before contacting the NLRB and
suggests that the NLRB refuse to process
employees’ complaints until the
employees first raise the issue with his
or her ‘‘management team.’’ The second
comment, from COLLE, urges the Board
to add language in the introduction
alerting employees that they also have
the right to refrain from engaging in
union activity. The comment suggests
that by not including the right to refrain
from union activity in the introduction,
the Board is showing a bias toward
union organizing. The comment argues
that a more neutral notice would
include both the right to engage and not
engage in union activity at the
beginning of the document, rather than
wait to first mention the right to refrain
in the affirmative rights section.
The Board does not agree with the
proposal that employees be required to
contact management officials as a
prerequisite to contacting the Board.
Such a procedural requirement is not
contemplated in the NLRA and could
discourage employees from exercising
or vindicating their rights.
The Board agrees, however, that the
introduction should include both the
rights to engage in union and other
concerted activity and the right to
refrain from doing so. The Board
believes that adding the right to refrain
to the introduction will aid in the
Board’s approach to present a balanced
and neutral statement of rights.
Accordingly, the first sentence in the
introduction to the notice in the final
rule will state:
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
guarantees the right of employees to organize
and bargain collectively with their
employers, and to engage in other protected
concerted activity or to refrain from engaging
in any of the above activity.
b. Comments Regarding Affirmative
Statement of Rights
The proposed notice contains the
following statement of affirmative
rights: Under the NLRA, you have the
right to:
Organize a union to negotiate with your
employer concerning your wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment.
Form, join or assist a union.
Bargain collectively through
representatives of employees’ own choosing
for a contract with your employer setting
your wages, benefits, hours, and other
working conditions.
Discuss your terms and conditions of
employment or union organizing with your
co-workers or a union.
Take action with one or more co-workers
to improve your working conditions by,
among other means, raising work-related
complaints directly with your employer or
with a government agency, and seeking help
from a union.
Strike and picket, depending on the
purpose or means of the strike or the
picketing.
Choose not to do any of these activities,
including joining or remaining a member of
a union.
75 FR 80419.
The majority of comments addressing
the affirmative rights section were
general and did not specifically address
the language of the individual
provisions. Generally, labor
organizations and employee advocate
groups favor the Board’s language. A
comment from the United Food and
Commercial Workers International
Union asserts that the approach
‘‘achieves an appropriate balance
between providing sufficiently clear
information about employee’s basic
statutory rights and limiting
unnecessary and confusing information
about peripheral rights.’’ On the other
hand, comments from employer groups
do not favor the Board’s language. More
specifically, employer groups argue that
the notice is biased toward union
organizing. Generally, the comments
argue that the right to refrain from
engaging in union activity should have
a more prominent place on the notice,
rather than being the last of the rights
listed on the poster. Many of these
comments contend that the notice
should include the right not to engage
in specific union-related activities.
Other comments about the notice’s
statement of affirmative rights are
directed at individual provisions of the
notice. A discussion of those comments
is set out in more detail below.
i. The Right To Organize and the Right
To Form, Join and Assist a Union
A few comments generally state that
the notice should include the
consequences of exercising the right to
organize, join or form a union. 105 For
example, several comments argue that
employees should be informed that if
they join a union they give up the right
to deal directly with their employers.
Another comment argues that
employees should be informed of the
cost of organizing a union, including the
cost of dues and the potential for the
company to shut down because of
increased labor costs associated with a
unionized workforce. Other comments
105 See, e.g., comment of Pilchak Cohen & Tice.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
suggest including language informing
employees that they can be fired for not
paying their union dues.
The Board rejects those suggestions.
The notice is intended to inform
employees of the rights that they have
under the NLRA and does not include
the benefits or consequences of
exercising any of the enumerated rights.
Adding the consequences of one right
would require revising the entire notice
to include potential consequences—
both positive and negative—of all the
protected rights. For example, the notice
would need to include the
consequences of refraining from joining
a union, such as not being permitted to
vote on contract ratifications or attend
union membership meetings. The
necessary additions to the notice would
create a notice that is not a concise list
of rights, but more likely a pamphletsized
list of rights and explanations. In
addition, the consequences of
unionization are unique to each
unionized workplace, so it would be
impossible to include a list of general
consequences that could apply
uniformly to all unionized workplaces.
If employees have questions about the
implications of any of their rights, they
can contact an NLRB regional office.
Assisted Living Federation of America
(ALFA) suggests that the affirmative
rights section should be revised to
reflect the anti-union position. For
example, rather than the current
provision that states that employees
have a right to ‘‘[o]rganize a union to
negotiate with your employer
concerning your wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment,’’
the comment suggests the following
provision: ‘‘you have the right to
organize with other employees in
opposition to a particular union or
unions.’’ And ‘‘you have the right to:
refuse to form, join, or assist a union,
including the right to refuse to sign a
union card, attend a union meeting or
supply a union with information
concerning you, your co-worker or your
job,’’ rather than ‘‘[you have the right to]
[f]orm, join or assist a union.’’ The
Board disagrees. The Board’s proposed
notice language reflects the language of
the NLRA itself, which specifically
grants affirmative rights, including
nearly all of those listed in the notice.
Also, the notice, like the NLRA, states
that employees have the right to refrain
from engaging in all of the listed
activities. The Board therefore sees no
need to recast the notice to further
emphasize the right to oppose unions.
ii. The Right To Bargain Collectively
Two comments suggest that the
collective-bargaining provision is
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54021
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
misleading and vague. The first
comment, from COLLE, argues that the
provision is misleading because it fails
to acknowledge that an employer does
not have an obligation under the NLRA
to consent to the establishment of a
collective-bargaining agreement, but
instead only has the statutory duty to
‘‘meet at reasonable times and confer in
good faith with respect to wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions of
employment.’’ 29 U.S.C. 158(d). The
comment also argues that the failure to
reach an agreement is not per se
unlawful, and the finding of an unfair
labor practice depends on whether the
parties engaged in good-faith bargaining.
This comment suggests that the notice
should instead note that the NLRA
requires parties to bargain in good faith
but does not compel agreement or the
making of concessions, and that, in
some instances, a bargaining impasse
will result, permitting the parties to
exercise their economic weapons, such
as strikes or lockouts. The second
comment, made generally by more than
a few organizations and individuals,
suggests that the notice add a statement
indicating that employers and unions
have an obligation to bargain in good
faith.
The Board finds it unnecessary to add
the suggested amplifications. For one
thing, the notice does state that
employers and unions have a duty to
bargain in good faith, ‘‘in a genuine
effort to reach a written, binding
agreement setting your terms and
conditions of employment.’’ In the
Board’s view, the statement that the
parties must make a ‘‘genuine effort’’ to
reach agreement necessarily implies that
they are not, in the end, required to
reach one. The Board deems the notice
language to be adequate on this point.
Finally, for the reasons already
discussed, the Board rejects the
contention that the notice should
discuss the implications or
consequences of unsuccessful
bargaining.
iii. The Right To Discuss With Co-
Workers or Union
A comment from the National
Immigration Law Center suggests that
the use of the phrase ‘‘terms and
conditions of employment’’ is unclear
especially to employees who are
unaware of their rights under the NLRA.
The comment recommends that, in
order to clarify, the Board add the
phrase ‘‘including wages and benefits.’’
The suggested language would read,
‘‘you have the right to: discuss your
terms and conditions of employment,
including wages and benefits, or union
organizing with your co-workers or a
union.’’
The Board agrees that adding the
suggested language would clarify the
provision. The list of affirmative rights
uses the terms ‘‘wages, hours, and other
terms and conditions of employment’’ to
describe what unions may negotiate.
The notice then uses the terms ‘‘wages,
benefits, hours, and other working
conditions’’ to describe the right to
bargain collectively for a contract. Those
statements make it clear that ‘‘terms and
conditions of employment’’ includes
wages and benefits. But then
immediately following those two
statements, the notice states that
employees may discuss ‘‘terms and
conditions of employment,’’ but does
not include any clarifying language. In
order, to create a more uniform notice
and clarify the extent to which
employees may discuss their terms and
conditions of employment the final
notice will read, ‘‘Under the NLRA, you
have a right to: Discuss your wages and
benefits and other terms and conditions
of employment or union organizing with
your co-workers or a union.’’
iv. The Right To Strike and Picket
The notice’s reference to the right to
strike and picket received a few
comments from law firms and other
organizations representing employers’
interests. The comments suggest that the
provision is flawed because of the
absence of further limitations,
exceptions, and distinctions. 106
Generally, the comments argue that not
all strikes and pickets are protected.
COLLE argues that the notice should
inform employees of the limitations of
strikes encompassed by ‘‘depending on
the purpose or means of the strike or
pickets’’—for example, whether the
strike is for recognition or bargaining,
whether the strike has a secondary
purpose, whether picketing involves a
reserved gate, whether the strike is a sitdown
or minority strike, whether the
conduct is a slowdown and not a full
withholding of work, whether the strike
is partial or intermittent, whether the
strike involves violence, and whether
the strike is an unfair labor practice
strike or an economic strike. ALFA
argues that employees should be
informed that if the employer is a
healthcare institution, ‘‘employees do
not have the right to participate in a
union-initiated strike or picket unless
the union has provided the employer
and federal and state mediation agencies
with the required 10 days notice.’’
106 See comments of ALFA, Carrollton Health and
Rehabilitation Center, and COLLE.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
The Board disagrees. By necessity, an
11x17-inch notice cannot contain an
exhaustive list of limitations on and
exceptions to the rights to strike and
picket, as suggested by employers.
However, because exercising the right to
strike can significantly affect the
livelihood of employees, the Board
considers it important to alert
employees that there are some
limitations to exercising this right. The
Board is satisfied that the general
caveat, ‘‘depending on the purpose or
means of the strike or the picketing,’’
together with the instruction to contact
the NLRB with specific questions about
the application of rights in certain
situations, provides sufficient guidance
to employees about the exercise of their
rights while still staying within the
constraints set by a necessarily brief
employee notice.
v. The Right To Refrain From Union or
Other Protected Concerted Activity
All the comments that discuss the
right to refrain from engaging in union
activity criticize what they contend to
be its lack of prominence. ALFA accuses
the Board of ‘‘burying’’ the provision by
placing it last, below the other rights to
engage in union and other concerted
activity. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce suggests that the notice
include ‘‘or not’’ after each of the
enumerated rights. For example, ‘‘you
have the right to: form join or assist a
union, or not.’’ (Emphasis added.) Other
suggested revisions to amplify the
prominence of the provision include
stating that employees have the right to
refrain from protected, concerted
activities and/or union activities; stating
that employees’ right to refrain includes
the right to actively oppose
unionization, to not sign union
authorization cards, to request a secret
ballot election, to not be a member of a
union or pay dues or fees (addressed
further below), or to decertify a union
(also addressed below); and stating that
employees have the right to be fairly
represented even if not a member of the
union. One employer suggests that if the
notice retains its current emphasis
favoring union activity and disfavoring
the freedom to refrain from such
activity, employers will need to post
their own notices that emphasize and
elaborate on the right to refrain.
The Board received at least four
comments that argue that the notice, as
written, may make employees believe
that the employer is encouraging
unionization. Two of those comments
suggest that an employer is protected
from compelled speech by Section 8(c)
of the NLRA. (The Board has already
rejected the latter argument; see section
54022 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
II, subsection B, ‘‘Statutory Authority,’’
above.)
The contention that the right to
refrain from engaging in union activity
is ‘‘buried’’ in the list of other
affirmative rights or that the Board is
biased in favor of unionization because
of the choice of placement is without
merit. The list of rights in the proposed
notice is patterned after the list of rights
in Section 7 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. 157.
Section 7 lists the right to refrain last,
after stating several other affirmative
rights before it. In addition, the Board’s
remedial notices list the right to refrain
last. See Ishikawa Gasket America, Inc.,
above. So does the Board’s Notice of
Election. In addition, the notice
required by this rule states that it is
illegal for an employer to take adverse
action against an employee ‘‘because
[the employee] choose[s] not to engage
in any such [union-related] activity.’’
The Board has revised the introduction
of the notice to include the right to
refrain—this addition further highlights
an employee’s right to refrain from
union activity. Finally, the Board
believes that people understand a right
as different from an obligation and thus
will, for example, understand that the
right to organize a union includes the
right not to do so. Accordingly, the
Board concludes that the notice
sufficiently addresses the right to refrain
among the list of statutory rights. In
addressing the numerous comments
questioning the Board’s neutrality, the
Board points out that in Section 1 of the
NLRA, Congress declared that it is the
policy of the United States to mitigate
or eliminate obstructions to the free
flow of commerce ‘‘by encouraging the
practice and procedure of collective
bargaining and by protecting the
exercise by workers of full freedom of
association, self-organization, and
designation of representatives of their
own choosing, for the purpose of
negotiating the terms and conditions of
their employment or other mutual aid or
protection.’’ 29 U.S.C. 151. Thus, by its
own terms, the NLRA encourages
collective bargaining and the exercise of
the other affirmative rights guaranteed
by the statute. In doing so, however, the
NLRA seeks to ensure employee choice
both to participate in union or other
protected concerted activity and to
refrain from doing so.
Turning to the issues of whether the
notice creates the impression that the
employer is encouraging unionization
and whether an employer can be
compelled to post the notice which
contains information the employer
would otherwise not share with
employees, the Board disagrees with
both arguments. First, the notice clearly
states that it is from the government.
Second, in light of the other workplace
notice employees are accustomed to
seeing, employees will understand that
the notice is a communication to
workers from the government, not from
the employer. Finally, as discussed
above, NLRA Section 8(c) protects
employers’ right to express any ‘‘views,
argument, or opinion’’ ‘‘if such
expression contains no threat of reprisal
or force or promise of benefit.’’ The rule
does not affect this right. Therefore, if
an employer is concerned that
employees will get the wrong
impression, it may legally express its
opinion regarding unionization as long
as it does so in a noncoercive manner.
Critics of the notice contend that the
notice should contain a number of
additional rights and also explanations
of when and how an employee may opt
out of paying union dues. Thus, most
employer groups argue that the notice
should contain a statement regarding
the right to decertify a union. A number
of those comments state that the notice
should provide detailed guidance on the
process for decertifying a union. Others
suggest that the notice should contain
instructions for deauthorizing a union
security clause. A majority of employers
and individuals who filed comments on
the content of the notice urge the Board
to include a notice of employee rights
under Communications Workers v.
Beck. Baker & McKenzie suggests
adding a provision informing employees
that for religious purposes an employee
may opt out of paying dues to a
union. 107 A few comments also suggest
that the notice add any rights that
employees may have in ‘‘right-to-work’’
states. As indicated previously,
numerous comments suggest the
inclusion of other rights of employees
who do not desire union representation.
Baker & McKenzie suggests a list of 26
additional affirmative rights, most of
which only affect employees in a
unionized setting and are derived from
the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act, the Labor-Management
Relations Act, or other Federal labor
statutes enforced by the Department of
Labor. The proposed list also includes
107 NLRA Section 19 provides that ‘‘Any
employee who is a member of and adheres to
established and traditional tenets or teachings of a
bona fide religion, body, or sect which has
historically held conscientious objections to joining
or financially supporting labor organizations shall
not be required to join or financially support any
labor organization as a condition of employment;
except that such employee may be required in a
contract between such employee’s employer and a
labor organization in lieu of periodic dues and
initiation fees, to pay sums equal to such dues and
initiation fees to a nonreligious, nonlabor
organization charitable fund exempt from
taxation[.]’’ 29 U.S.C. 169.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
some rights covered by the NLRA such
as ‘‘the right to sign or refuse to sign an
authorization card,’’ ‘‘the right to
discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of union representation
or membership with the employer,’’ and
‘‘the right to receive information from
the employer regarding the advantages
and disadvantages of union
representation.’’
The Board has determined that the
inclusion of these additional items is
unnecessary. As discussed above, the
NLRA itself contains only a general
statement that employees have the right
not to participate in union and/or other
protected concerted activities. Section
19 does specifically set forth the right of
certain religious objectors to pay the
equivalent of union dues to a taxexempt
charity; however, this right is
implicated only when an employer and
union have entered into a unionsecurity
arrangement. Because the
notice does not mention or explain such
arrangements, the Board finds no reason
to list this narrow exception to unionsecurity
requirements. In sum, the
Board is not persuaded that the notice
needs to expand further on the right to
refrain by including a list of specific
ways in which employees can elect not
to participate or opt out of paying union
dues. Employees who desire more
information regarding the right not to
participate can contact the Board.
The Board does not believe that
further explication of this point is
necessary. However, because so many
comments argue that the notice should
include the right to decertify a union
and rights under Communication
Workers v. Beck, the Board has decided
to explain specifically why it disagrees
with each contention.
Concerning the right to decertify, the
notice states that employees have the
right not to engage in union activity,
‘‘including joining or remaining a
member of a union.’’ Moreover, the
notice does not mention the right to
seek Board certification of a union.
Indeed, contrary to the numerous
comments suggesting that the proposed
notice is a ‘‘roadmap’’ for union
organizing, the notice does not even
mention the right to petition for a union
representation election, possibly leading
to union certification; rather, it merely
states that employees have the right to
‘‘organize a union’’ and ‘‘form, join or
assist a union.’’ The notice does not give
any further instructions on how an
employee can exercise those rights.
Similarly, the notice states that
employees may choose not to remain a
member of a union without further
instructions on how to exercise that
right. To include instructions for
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54023
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
exercising one right and not the other
would upset the balanced recitation of
rights. If employees have questions
concerning how they can exercise their
rights, the notice encourages them to
contact the Board.
The Board has also determined that
the addition of Beck rights in the final
notice is unnecessary. Those rights
apply only to employees who are
represented by unions under collectivebargaining
agreements containing
union-security provisions. As stated in
the NPRM, unions that seek to obligate
employees to pay dues and fees under
those provisions are required to inform
those employees of their Beck rights.
See California Saw & Knife Works,
above, 320 NLRB at 233. See 75 FR at
80412–80413. The Board was presented
with no evidence during this
rulemaking that suggests that unions are
not generally complying with their
notice obligations. In addition, the
Notice of Election, which is posted days
before employees vote on whether to be
represented by a union, contains an
explanation of Beck rights. Moreover, as
the Board stated in the NPRM, only
about 8 percent of all private sector
employees are represented by unions,
and by no means are all of them subject
to union-security clauses. Accordingly,
the number of employees to whom Beck
applies is significantly smaller than the
number of employees in the private
sector covered by the NLRA. Id. at
80413. Indeed, in the ‘‘right-to-work’’
states, where union-security clauses are
prohibited, no employees are covered by
union security clauses, with the
possible exception of employees who
work in a Federal enclave where state
laws do not apply. Accordingly, because
Beck does not apply to the
overwhelming majority of employees in
today’s private sector workplace, and
because unions already are obliged to
inform the employees to whom it does
apply of their Beck rights, the Board is
not including Beck notification in the
final notice.
The Board also disagrees with the
comment from Baker & McKenzie
contending that an exhaustive list of
additional rights should be included in
the notice. In addition to the reasons
discussed above, the Board finds that it
would not be appropriate to include
those rights, most of which are rights of
union members vis-à-vis their unions.
For example, the comment suggests
including the ‘‘right for each union
member to insist that his/her dues and
initiation fees not be increased * * *
except by a majority vote by secret
ballot * * *,’’ the ‘‘right of each
employee in a bargaining unit to receive
a copy of the collective bargaining
agreement,’’ and the ‘‘right to nominate
candidates, to vote in elections of the
labor organization, to attend
membership meetings, and to
participate in the deliberations and
voting upon business properly before
the meeting.’’ Those rights are not found
in the NLRA, but instead arise from
other Federal labor laws not
administered by the NLRB. See Labor-
Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. 401 et seq
(LMRDA). The Board finds that it would
be inappropriate to include those
additional rights in a notice informing
employees of their rights under the
NLRA.
vi. Other Comments
The Board has also considered, but
rejected, the contention that the notice
contain simply a ‘‘short and plain’’
description of rights such as that used
in remedial notices. See Ishikawa
Gasket America, Inc., above. The two
notices have different purposes: one
looks back; the other, forward. As
explained in the NPRM, the principal
purpose of a remedial notice is to
inform employees of unlawful conduct
that has taken place and what is being
done to remedy that conduct.
Accordingly, although a remedial notice
contains only a brief summary of NLRA
rights, it also contains examples of
unlawful actions that have been
committed. To the extent that such a
notice generally increases employees’
awareness of their rights, the unlawful
conduct detailed adds to that awareness.
The proposed notice, by contrast, is a
notice intended to make employees
aware of their NLRA rights generally. It
normally will not be posted against a
background of already-committed unfair
labor practices; it therefore needs to
contain a summary both of NLRA rights
and examples of unlawful conduct in
order to inform employees effectively of
the extent of their NLRA rights and of
the availability of remedies for
violations of those rights. Moreover, as
the Board explained in the NPRM, the
general notice of rights posted in the
pre-election notice is sufficient because
at least one union along with the
employer is on the scene to enlighten
employees of their rights under the
NLRA. 75 FR 80412 fn.19.
The fundamental rights described in
the notice are well established and have
been unchanged for much of the Board’s
history. Accordingly, the Board does not
share the concern expressed in some
comments that a new notice will have
to be posted each time the composition
of the Board changes.
Finally, the Board rejects the
contention that the notice should
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
address certain rights of employers. The
notice is intended to inform employees
of their rights, not those of their
employers.
For all the foregoing reasons, the
Board finds it unnecessary to modify the
section of the notice summarizing
employees’ NLRA rights.
c. The Examples of Unlawful Employer
Conduct in the Notice
The proposed notice contained the
following examples of unlawful
conduct:
Under the NLRA, it is illegal for your
employer to:
Prohibit you from soliciting for a union
during non-work time, such as before or after
work or during break times; or from
distributing union literature during non-work
time, in non-work areas, such as parking lots
or break rooms.
Question you about your union support or
activities in a manner that discourages you
from engaging in that activity.
Fire, demote, or transfer you, or reduce
your hours or change your shift, or otherwise
take adverse action against you, or threaten
to take any of these actions, because you join
or support a union, or because you engage in
concerted activity for mutual aid and
protection, or because you choose not to
engage in any such activity.
Threaten to close your workplace if
workers choose a union to represent them.
Promise or grant promotions, pay raises, or
other benefits to discourage or encourage
union support.
Prohibit you from wearing union hats,
buttons, t-shirts, and pins in the workplace
except under special circumstances.
Spy on or videotape peaceful union
activities and gatherings or pretend to do so.
75 FR 80419.
The Board received limited comments
on six of the seven examples of
unlawful employer conduct. As a
general matter, some comments contend
that the number of examples of
employer misconduct is
disproportionate compared to the
examples of union misconduct. 108 Most
of the comments refer to the number of
paragraphs devoted to illegal employer
conduct (7) and the number of
paragraphs devoted to illegal union
conduct (5). Several comments indicate
that when one compares the employer
misconduct listed in Section 8(a) of the
NLRA with union misconduct listed in
Section 8(b), no such imbalance appears
in the text of the statute. Several
comments provide additional examples
of union misconduct that they say
should be included.
As with the notice’s statement of
affirmative rights, some of the
108 See, e.g., comments of COLLE, Baker &
McKenzie, National Association of Manufacturers,
and American Trucking Association.
54024 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
individual provisions in this section of
the notice received numerous comments
and suggestions for improvement. The
vast majority of the comments about the
specific provisions are from
representatives of employers. Those
comments generally contend that the
provisions are overgeneralizations and
do not articulate the legal standard for
evaluating allegations of unlawful
conduct or indicate factual scenarios in
which certain employer conduct may be
lawful.
After reviewing all of the comments,
the Board has decided to revise one of
the examples of unlawful employer
conduct contained in the NPRM. The
Board concludes that the other
provisions, as proposed, are accurate
and informative and, as with the notice
as a whole, strike an appropriate
balance between being simultaneously
instructive and succinct.
Furthermore, the Board sees no reason
to add or subtract from the employer or
union illegal activity to make the two
sections contain an equal number of
paragraphs. The comment that argues
that no imbalance exists in the statute
is correct, but the majority of violations
under Section 8(b) concern union
conduct vis-à-vis employers, not
conduct that impairs employees’ rights.
The notice of rights is intended to
summarize employer and union
violations against employees;
accordingly, there is no need to alter the
list to include unlawful union activity
against employers.
i. No-Solicitation and No-Distribution
Rules
The Board received a few comments
that were critical of the proposed notice
language stating that an employer
cannot lawfully prohibit employees
from ‘‘soliciting for the union during
non-work time or distributing union
literature during non-work time, in nonwork
areas.’’ The Service Employees
International Union comments that
‘‘solicitation’’ has a narrow meaning and
involves asking someone to join the
union by signing an authorization card,
which is subject to the restrictions
suggested in the notice. The comment
submits that the notice should state that
an employer cannot prohibit employees
from ‘‘talking’’ about a union. The
comment suggests that ‘‘talking’’ is both
more accurate and is easier for
employees to understand than
‘‘soliciting.’’
The remaining comments criticize the
provision for failing to note any
limitations on employees’ rights to
solicit and distribute, such as the
limited rights of off-duty employees,
and limitations in retail and health care
establishments. One comment, in
particular, suggests the notice should
advise healthcare employees that they
do not enjoy a protected right to solicit
in immediate patient care areas or
where their activity might disturb
patients. See Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB,
437 U.S. 483 (1978). The comment
proposes to include a qualification that
a hospital or other health care employer
may prohibit all solicitation in
immediate patient care areas or outside
those areas when necessary to avoid
disrupting health care operations or
disturbing patients. Another comment
suggests that the law in this area is so
complex that no meaningful but
succinct provision can be constructed,
and therefore recommends deleting it
entirely.
The Board disagrees with those
comments. The Board appreciates that
under case law, employees’ right to
engage in solicitation and distribution of
literature is qualified in certain settings
and accordingly that employers may, in
some situations, legally prohibit
solicitation or distribution of literature
even during employees’ nonworking
time. Given the variety of circumstances
in which the right to solicit and
distribute may be limited, however, the
Board has determined that limitations
on the size and format of the notice
preclude the inclusion of factual
situations in which an employer may
lawfully limit such activity. As stated
above, employees may contact the NLRB
with specific questions about the
lawfulness of their employers’ rules
governing solicitation and literature
distribution.
Turning to the suggestion that the
notice should be modified to remove the
reference to union solicitation in favor
of a reference only to the right to engage
in union talk, the Board agrees in part.
The Board distinguishes between
soliciting for a union, which generally
means encouraging a co-worker to
participate in supporting a union, and
union talk, which generally refers to
discussions about the advantages and
disadvantages of unionization. Scripps
Memorial Hosp., 347 NLRB 52 (2006).
The right to talk about terms and
conditions of employment, which
would necessarily include union talk, is
encompassed more specifically by the
‘‘discussion’’ provision in the
affirmative rights section of the notice.
That provision indicates that employees
have the right to ‘‘discuss your terms
and conditions of employment or union
organizing with your co-workers or a
union.’’ In order to maintain
consistency and clarity throughout the
notice, the Board agrees that some
change is necessary to the solicitation
provision. Accordingly, the final notice
will state that it is illegal for an
employer to ‘‘prohibit you from talking
about or soliciting for a union during
non-work time, such as before or after
work or during break times; or from
distributing union literature during nonwork
time, in non-work areas, such as
parking lots or break rooms.’’
ii. Questioning Employees About Union
Activity
The Board received one comment
concerning this provision, suggesting
that it was confusing. The Board
believes the existing language is
sufficiently clear.
iii. Taking Adverse Action Against
Employees for Engaging in Union-
Related Activity
The Board did not receive any
specific comments regarding this
provision.
iv. Threats To Close
A few comments from employer
groups criticize the perceived
overgeneralization of this provision.
Those comments note that, as with
unlawful interrogation, a threat to close
is evaluated under a totality of
circumstances, and that an employer is
permitted to state the effects of
unionization on the company so long as
the statement is based on demonstrably
probable consequences of unionization.
The Board agrees that the law in this
general area is complex and that
predictions of plant closure based on
demonstrably probable consequences of
unionization may be lawful. NLRB v.
Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618
(1969). However, the example in the
proposed notice is not such a
prediction; rather, the notice states that
it is unlawful for an employer to
‘‘threaten to close your workplace if
workers choose a union to represent
them.’’ Such a statement, which clearly
indicates that the employer will close
the plant in retaliation against the
employees for choosing union
representation, is unlawful. Id. at 618–
619. Thus, the Board finds it
unnecessary to modify or delete this
provision of the notice.
v. Promising Benefits
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
The Board received one comment
addressing this provision. The comment
argues that the provision is ‘‘troubling’’
because it may be interpreted by a
reader to mean ‘‘anytime their employer
seeks to make such improvements it
discourages union support because
improved wages and benefits may
reduce employee’s interest in a union.’’
The Board does not think such an
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54025
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
interpretation would be reasonable,
because it is contrary to the plain
language of the notice. The notice states
that promises or grants of benefits ‘‘to
discourage or encourage union support’’
are unlawful. It would make little sense
to use such language if the Board had
meant that any promises or grants of
benefits were unlawful, rather than only
those with the unlawful stated
purposes. And stating that such
promises or grants to * * * encourage
union support are unlawful necessarily
implies that not all promises and grants
of benefits discourage union support.
vi. Prohibitions on Union Insignia
A few comments suggest that the
provision fails to illuminate the
conditions under which ‘‘special
circumstances’’ may exist, including in
hotels or retail establishments where the
insignia may interfere with the
employer’s public image, or when the
insignia is profane or vulgar. Another
comment indicates that the provision is
overly broad because it does not reflect
that a violation depends on the work
environment and the content of the
insignia. All the comments addressing
this provision suggest either adding
more detail to the provision to narrow
its meaning, or striking the provision
entirely.
Again, the Board disagrees.
Employees have a statutorily protected
right to wear union insignia unless the
employer is able to demonstrate
‘‘special circumstances’’ that justify a
prohibition. Republic Aviation Corp. v.
NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945). For reasons
of format, the notice cannot
accommodate those comments
suggesting that this provision specify
cases in which the Board has found
‘‘special circumstances,’’ such as where
insignia might interfere with production
or safety; where it conveys a message
that is obscene or disparages a
company’s product or service; where it
interferes with an employer’s attempts
to have its employees project a specific
image to customers; where it hinders
production; where it causes disciplinary
problems in the plant; where it is in an
immediate patient care areas; or where
it would have any other consequences
that would constitute special
circumstances under settled precedent.
NLRB v. Mead Corp., 73 F.3d 74, 79 (6th
Cir. 1996), enfg. Escanaba Paper Co.,
314 NLRB 732 (1994).
Given the lengthy list of potential
special circumstances, the addition of
one or two examples of special
circumstances might mislead or confuse
employees into thinking that the right to
wear union insignia in all other
circumstances was absolute. And
including an entire list of special
circumstances, concerning both the
wearing of union insignia and other
matters (e.g., striking and picketing,
soliciting and distributing union
literature), would make it impossible to
summarize NLRA rights on an 11x17
inch poster. In any event, the Board
finds that the general caveat that special
circumstances may defeat the
application of the general rule, coupled
with the advice to employees to contact
the NLRB with specific questions about
particular issues, achieves the balance
required for an employee notice of
rights about wearing union insignia in
the workplace.
vii. Spying or Videotaping
Aside from the few comments that
suggest the provision be stricken, only
one comment specifically addresses the
content of this provision. The comment
states that the language is confusing
because a ‘‘supervisor might believe it
would be permissible to photograph or
tape record a union meeting. Another
might say that their video camera
doesn’t use tape so it’s okay to use.’’ The
Board has determined that no change is
necessary. In the Board’s view, it is
unlikely that a reasonable supervisor
would construe this notice language
(which also says that it is unlawful to
‘‘spy on’’ employees’ peaceful union
activities) as indicating that it is
unlawful to videotape, but lawful to
tape record or photograph, such
activities. Supervisors are free to contact
the Board if they are unsure whether a
contemplated response to union activity
might be unlawful.
viii. Other Suggested Additions to
Illegal Employer Conduct
The Heritage Foundation suggests that
the Board add language to the notice
informing employees that if they choose
to be represented by a union, their
employer may not give them raises or
bonuses for good performance without
first bargaining with the union. The
comment suggests that the Board add
the following provision ‘‘if a union
represents you and your co-workers,
give you a pay raise or a bonus, or
reduce or dock your pay, without
negotiating with the union.’’ The Board
rejects this suggestion for the same
reason it rejects other comments
contending that the notice should
include the consequences of
unionization in the summary of NLRA
rights, above.
The National Immigration Law Center
suggests that the Board add the
following to the notice poster:
Under the NLRA, it is illegal for your
employer to: Report you or threaten to report
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
you to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) or to other law
enforcement authorities in order to
intimidate or retaliate against you because
you join or support a union, or because you
engage in concerted activity for mutual aid
and protection.
The Board finds it unnecessary to add
this statement. The notice states that it
is unlawful for an employer to ‘‘fire,
demote, or transfer you, or reduce your
hours or change your shift, or otherwise
take adverse action against you, or
threaten to take any of these actions,
because you join or support a union, or
because you engage in concerted
activity for mutual aid and protection
(emphasis added) [.]’’ Reporting or
threatening to report an employee in the
manner described in the comment
would be a form of adverse action or
threat thereof, and the Board believes
that it would be understood as such.
d. Examples of Illegal Union Activity
The proposed notice contained the
following examples of unlawful union
conduct:
Under the NLRA, it is illegal for a
union or for the union that represents
you in bargaining with your employer
to:
Threaten you that you will lose your job
unless you support the union.
Refuse to process a grievance because you
have criticized union officials or because you
are not a member of the union.
Use or maintain discriminatory standards
or procedures in making job referrals from a
hiring hall.
Cause or attempt to cause an employer to
discriminate against you because of your
union-related activity.
Take other adverse action against you
based on whether you have joined or support
the union.
75 FR 80419.
There were only a few comments
addressing specific changes to the
language in this section of the notice.
ALFA criticizes the provision that states
that a union may not ‘‘threaten you that
you will lose your job unless you
support the union,’’ because the
proposed language ‘‘fails to capture
Section 8(b)(1)(A)’s broader prohibition
against restraint and coercion.’’ The
comment suggests revising the language
to state that a union may not ‘‘[r]estrain
or coerce you in the exercise of your
right to refrain from joining a union by
threatening to inflict bodily harm or
following you to your home and
refusing to leave unless you sign a
union card.’’ That comment also
suggests adding a provision stating that
it is unlawful for a union to ‘‘promise
to waive your union initiation fee if you
agree to sign a union card before a vote
is taken.’’
54026 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Another comment argues that the
illegal union conduct portion of the
notice fails to fully inform employees of
their rights as union members. 109 In
contrast, another comment states a
different position—that the list of illegal
union conduct ‘‘ostensibly relates only
to restraint or coercion by a union in a
unionized environment.’’ 110 The
comment further states that the Board
should have included examples of
‘‘union restraint or coercion in an
organizing setting’’ but gives no specific
examples.
ALFA suggests three changes to the
unlawful union activity section. First,
rather than say that the union may not
‘‘threaten you that you will lose your
job,’’ a more comprehensive statement
would be ‘‘threaten, harass, or coerce
you in order to gain your support for the
union.’’ The Board agrees, except as
regards ‘‘harass,’’ which is sometimes
used to characterize almost any sort of
union solicitation. Accordingly, the
statement will be modified to read
‘‘threaten or coerce you in order to gain
your support for the union.’’ Second,
the comment suggests changing ‘‘cause
or attempt to cause an employer to
discriminate against you’’ to
‘‘discriminate or attempt to discriminate
against you because you don’t support
a union.’’ The Board disagrees, because
the suggested change would shift the
focus of the provision away from the
sort of conduct contemplated in the
rule. See NLRA Section 8(b)(2), 29
U.S.C. 158(b)(2). Third, the comment
suggests changing ‘‘take other adverse
action against you based on whether
you have joined or support the union’’
to ‘‘take adverse action against you
because you have not joined or do not
support the union.’’ The Board agrees
and will modify this provision of the
notice accordingly.
Baker & McKenzie urges that a variety
of other examples of unlawful union
conduct be added to the notice,
including requiring nonmembers to pay
a fee to receive contract benefits,
disciplining members for engaging in
activity adverse to a union-represented
grievant, disciplining members for
refusing to engage in unprotected
activity, engaging in careless grievance
handling, failing to notify employees of
their Beck rights, requiring employees to
agree to dues checkoff instead of direct
payment, discriminatorily applying
hiring hall rules, and conditioning
continued employment on the payment
of a fine or dues in ‘‘right-to-work’’
states.
109 See comment of National Association of
Manufacturers.
110 See comment of ALFA.
As with the examples of unlawful
employer activity, the Board concludes
that the provisions concerning unlawful
union activity, as proposed, are accurate
and informative, and, as with the notice
as a whole, strike an appropriate
balance between being simultaneously
instructive and succinct. Moreover, the
Board finds it unnecessary to include
additional examples of unlawful
conduct so that the lists of employer
and union activity are the same length
because the notice describes the central
forms of unlawful conduct engaged in
by each type of entity. Still less is it
necessary to add a host of additional
examples of unlawful union conduct,
with the result that the list of such
conduct would be much longer than the
list of unlawful employer conduct. In
the Board’s view, the list of unlawful
union conduct in the proposed notice
fairly informs employees of the types of
conduct that a union is prohibited from
engaging in without providing
unnecessary or confusing examples.
Employees may contact the NLRB if
they believe a union has violated the
NLRA.
e. Collective-Bargaining Provision
The collective-bargaining provision of
the NPRM states that ‘‘if you and your
co-workers select a union to act as your
collective bargaining representatives,
your employer and the union are
required to bargain in good faith and in
a genuine effort to reach a written,
binding agreement setting your terms
and conditions of employment. The
union is required to fairly represent you
in bargaining and enforcing the
agreement.’’ 75 FR 80419.
The Board received only a few
comments on this provision of the
notice. Notably, COLLE requests the
inclusion of a limitation on the
provision that employees have the right
to bargain collectively, in order to
clarify that the employer’s obligation is
only to bargain in good faith and not
necessarily to reach an agreement. A
second comment suggests that the
notice inform employees that they have
the right to ‘‘sue a union for unfairly
representing the employee in
bargaining, contract administration, or a
discrimination matter.’’
The Board has decided that no
changes are necessary to the duty to
bargain paragraph. The Board is
satisfied that the proposed collectivebargaining
provision provides sufficient
guidance to employees about the
exercise of these rights while still
staying within the constraints set by a
necessarily brief employee notice. As to
the first comment, the notice states that
an employer and union have a duty to
‘‘bargain in good faith and in a genuine
effort to reach a written, binding
agreement.’’ As discussed above, by
referring to a ‘‘genuine effort’’ to reach
agreement, the notice necessarily
implies that the parties are not obliged
to actually reach one. The duty to
bargain in good faith has many
components. See NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S.
736 (1962). And the suggestion that
employers do not have to agree to
certain proposals, although correct, does
not account for the line of cases that
suggest that an important ingredient in
good faith bargaining is a willingness to
compromise. See Phelps Dodge, 337
NLRB 455 (2002).
Turning to the suggestion that the
notice include language informing
employees of their right to ‘‘sue’’ the
union if it fails to represent them fairly,
the Board has concluded that the notice
sufficiently apprises employees of their
right to fair representation and of their
right to file unfair labor practice charges
with the Board should a union fail to
fulfill that duty. The rights that
employees have to sue unions directly
in court without coming to the Board
are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
f. Coverage Provision
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
In regard to coverage under the NLRA,
the proposed notice states:
The National Labor Relations Act covers
most private-sector employers. Excluded
from coverage under the NLRA are publicsector
employees, agricultural and domestic
workers, independent contractors, workers
employed by a parent or spouse, employees
of air and rail carriers covered by the Railway
Labor Act, and supervisors (although
supervisors that have been discriminated
against for refusing to violate the NLRA may
be covered). 75 FR 80419.
A comment from the National
Immigration Law Center suggests adding
the following language: ‘‘The NLRA
protects the above-enumerated rights of
all employees, irrespective of their
immigration status. That protection
extends to employees without work
authorization, though certain remedies
in those circumstances may be limited.
Employers cannot threaten you or
intimidate you on the basis of you
immigration status to prevent you from
joining or supporting a union, or
engaging in concerted activity for
mutual aid and protection.’’
The Board has decided not to amend
the coverage provision in the final
notice. Although the Board understands
that many immigrant employees may be
unsure whether they are covered by the
NLRA, the notice does not include a list
of covered employees. Including
specific coverage of immigrants, but not
other classes of employees, may cause
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54027
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
confusion for many employees.
Currently, the language in the notice
tracks statutory language and provides
only the list of employees excluded
from coverage. As a result, those
employees not listed under the
exclusions will reasonably believe they
are covered employees under the
statute. Any employees who are unsure
of their status should contact a regional
office of the NLRB.
The final notice as modified is set
forth in the Appendix to Subpart A of
this rule.
2. Posting Issues
The Board proposed that the notice to
employees shall be at least 11 inches by
17 inches in size, and in such colors and
type size and style as the Board shall
prescribe. The proposed rule further
provides that employers that choose to
print the notice after downloading it
from the Board’s Web site must print in
color, and the printed notice shall be at
least 11 inches by 17 inches in size.
Proposed § 104.202(d) requires all
covered employers to post the employee
notice physically ‘‘in conspicuous
places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily
posted.’’ Employers must take steps to
ensure that the notice is not altered,
defaced, or covered with other material.
Proposed § 104.202(e) states that the
Board will print the notice poster and
provide copies to employers on request.
It also states that employers may
download copies of the poster from the
Board’s Web site, http://www.nlrb.gov,
for their use. It further provides that
employers may reproduce exact
duplicates of the poster supplied by the
Board, and that they may also use
commercial poster services to provide
the employee notice consolidated onto
one poster with other Federally
mandated labor and employment
notices, as long as consolidation does
not alter the size, color, or content of the
poster provided by the Board. Finally,
employers that have significant numbers
of employees who are not proficient in
English will be required to post notices
of employee rights in the language or
languages spoken by significant
numbers of those employees. The Board
will make available posters containing
the necessary translations.
In addition to requiring physical
posting of paper notices, proposed
§ 104.202(f) requires that notices be
distributed electronically, such as by e-
mail, posting on an intranet or an
internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the employer customarily
communicates with its employees by
such means. 111 An employer that
customarily posts notices to its
employees on an intranet or internet site
must display the required employee
notice on such a site prominently—i.e.,
no less prominently than other notices
to employees. The Board proposed to
give employers two options to satisfy
this requirement. An employer may
either download the notice itself and
post it in the manner described above,
or post, in the same manner, a link to
the Board’s Web site that contains the
full text of the required employee
notice. In the latter case, the proposed
rule states that the link must contain the
prescribed introductory language from
the poster, which appears in Appendix
to Subpart A, below. An employer that
customarily communicates with its
employees by e-mail will satisfy the
electronic posting requirement by
sending its employees an e-mail
message containing the link described
above.
The proposed rule provides that,
where a significant number of an
employer’s employees are not proficient
in English, the employer must provide
the required electronic notice in the
language the employees speak. This
requirement can be met either by
downloading and posting, as required in
§ 104.202(f), the translated version of
the notice supplied by the Board, or by
prominently displaying, as required in
§ 104.202(f), a link to the Board’s Web
site that contains the full text of the
poster in the language the employees
speak. The Board will provide
translations of that link. 75 FR 80417.
Section 104.203 of the proposed rule
provides that Federal contractors may
comply with the requirements of the
rule by posting the notices to employees
required under the Department of
Labor’s notice-posting rule, 29 CFR part
471. Id.
The Board solicited comments on its
proposed requirements for both physical
and electronic notice posting. In
addition, the Board solicited comments
on whether it should prescribe
standards regarding the size, clarity,
location, and brightness of the
electronic link, including how to
prescribe electronic postings that are at
least as large, clear, and conspicuous as
the employer’s other postings.
The Board received numerous
comments concerning the technical
requirements for posting the notices of
employee rights. Those comments
address the locations where notices
would be physically posted, physical
characteristics of the posters,
111 See J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 9, slip op.
at 6 (2010).
requirements for posting in languages
other than English, details of the
requirement for electronic posting of
notices by employers that customarily
communicate with their employees
electronically, and ‘‘safe harbor’’
provisions for Federal contractors that
are already posting the Department of
Labor’s notice of NLRA rights.
a. Location of Posting
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
Section 104.202(d) of the proposed
rule requires that the notice be posted
‘‘in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are
customarily posted.’’ Some employers
and their representatives, including law
firm Baker & McKenzie, comment that
the proposed rule does not define
‘‘customarily.’’ The Board responds that
the term is used in its normal meaning
of ‘‘ordinarily’’ or ‘‘usually,’’ as it has
been used in the Board’s remedial
orders for decades. 112 This standard is
consistent with the posting
requirements in the regulations and
statutes of other agencies. 113 Baker &
McKenzie’s comment contends that the
quoted phrase should read instead
‘‘where other legally-required notices to
employees are customarily posted.’’ The
Board disagrees. As under the
Department of Labor’s notice posting
requirement, 114 the Board’s final rule
clarifies that the notice must be posted
wherever notices to employees
regarding personnel rules and policies
are customarily posted and are readily
seen by employees, not simply where
other legally mandated notices are
posted.
A number of comments from
employers 115 and individuals take the
position that it is time to move away
from paper posters and to encourage
employees to inform themselves of their
rights through the Internet. Many
comments object that the posting
requirement will add to already
cluttered bulletin boards or necessitate
additional bulletin boards. 116 The Board
responds to these comments above in
section II, subsection C, Factual Support
for the Rule. The Council of Smaller
112 See, e.g., The Golub Corporation, 159 NLRB
355, 369 (1966).
113 See, e.g., 29 CFR 1903.2 (Occupational Safety
and Health Act); 29 CFR 1601.30 (Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964); 42 U.S.C. 2000e-10(a)
(Americans with Disabilities Act); 29 U.S.C. 2619(a)
(Family and Medical Leave Act).
114 75 FR 28386.
115 See, e.g., comments of Buffalo Wild Wings;
Associated Milk Producers, Inc.; Smitty’s, Inc.;
National Grocers Association; and Sorensen/Wille,
Inc.
116 See, e.g., comments of Dr. Pepper Snapple
Group; Georgia Caremaster Medical Services;
Homestead Village, Inc.; Exodus Designs &
Surfaces; Bonnie Dedmore State Farm.
54028 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Enterprises further maintains that the
requirement to ensure that the notice is
conspicuous and not altered or defaced
imposes an unnecessary burden on
employers. Caremaster Medical
Services’ comment asks whether
periodic inspections of the notices will
be conducted and, if so, by whom.
Specifically, this comment expresses
concern that employers will be forced to
permit union officials to enter their
facilities to inspect the notices. The rule
does not provide for such inspections or
alter current standards regarding union
access to employers’ premises. Rather,
the Board contemplates that an
employer’s failure to comply with the
rule will be brought to the attention of
the employer or the Board by employees
or union representatives who are
lawfully on the premises.
The International Union of Operating
Engineers comments that the rule needs
to apply to the marine construction
industry, in which employees work at
remote sites and do not necessarily see
a posting in the office. Another
comment similarly states that the rule is
not practical for small employers with
dispersed employees, e.g., trucking or
insurance companies. 117 Similarly, one
comment contends that the requirement
is burdensome for construction
employers, whose employees report to
various worksites. 118 The Board
recognizes that certain work situations,
such as those mentioned in the
comments, present special challenges
with regard to physical posting.
However, the Board concludes that
these employers must nonetheless post
the required notice at their work
premises in accordance with the
proposed rule. Electronic posting will
also aid the employers in providing the
notice to their employees in the manner
in which they customarily communicate
with them.
TLC Companies contends that
professional employer organizations
(PEOs) such as itself should be exempt
from the rule’s requirements. It explains
that PEOs are ‘‘co-employers’’ of a client
employer’s employees, providing
payroll and other administrative
services. However, it asserts that PEOs
have no control over the client
employer’s worksite. Accordingly, TLC
Companies is concerned that a PEO
could be found liable for its client’s
failure to post the notice. The Board
contemplates that employers will be
required to physically post a notice only
on their own premises or at worksites
where the employer has the ability to
117 Comment of TLC Companies.
118 Comment of NAI Electrical Contractors.
post a notice or cause a notice to be
posted directed to its own employees.
Retail Industry Leaders Association
asks whether the rule would apply to
overseas employees of American
employers. The answer to that question
is generally ‘‘no’’; the Board’s
jurisdiction does not extend to
American employees engaged in
permanent employment abroad in
locations over which the United States
has no legislative control. See Computer
Sciences Raytheon, 318 NLRB 966
(1995). Employers of employees who are
working abroad only temporarily are not
required to post the notice in foreign
workplaces.
b. Size and Form Requirements
Many comments from organizations
and individuals object to the 11x17-inch
size prescribed by the proposed rule. 119
They argue that most employers do not
have the capacity to make 11x17-inch
color copies and will have to use
commercial copy services, which some
contend are expensive. A human
resources official also asserts that other
required notices are smaller, and that
the larger poster will be more eyecatching,
implying that NLRA rights are
more important. Other comments
support the proposed 11x17-inch size,
stating that the notice should stand out
and be in large print, with one comment
specifying that the title should be
larger. 120 The AFL–CIO argues that
employers should not be permitted to
download the notice from the Board’s
Web site if their limited printing
capacity would make it less eyecatching.
A few comments contend that the
prescribed size will make it difficult to
include in consolidated posters of
various statutory rights, as the proposed
rule permits. 121 One comment urges the
Board to follow the ‘‘3′ rule,’’ according
to which a notice is large enough if it
can be read from a distance of 3 feet, 122
and another suggests only a legibility
requirement. 123 One comment states
that minor deviations, such as 1 ⁄4 inch,
should not be deemed violations. 124
Another comment expresses a concern
that a large, prominent poster could
cause a few unhappy employees to
begin activity that could result in
divisiveness in a small facility. 125
119 See, e.g., comment of Associated General
Contractors (AGC) of Iowa.
120 See, e.g., comments of AFL–CIO and three
Georgetown University Law Center students.
121 See, e.g., comment of Sinnissippi Centers.
122 AGC of Iowa.
123 Sinnissippi Centers.
124 National Council of Agricultural Employers.
125 Mercy Center Nursing Unit Inc.
The Board has decided to retain the
11x17-inch poster size. As the NPRM
states, the Board will furnish paper
copies of the notice, at no charge, to
employers that ask for them. Employers
that prefer to download and print the
notice from the Board’s Web site will
have two formats available: a one-page
11x17-inch version and a two-page 8
1
⁄2x11-inch version, which must be
printed in landscape format and taped
together to form the 11x17-inch poster.
In response to the comments objecting
to the added expense of obtaining color
copies through outside sources, the
Board has revised the rule to delete the
requirement that reproductions of the
notice be in color, provided that the
reproductions otherwise conform to the
Board-provided notice. Accordingly, the
Board concludes that obtaining copies
of the notice will not be difficult or
expensive for employers.
The Board finds no merit to the other
objections to the 11x17-inch poster size.
Contrary to some comments, the Board
does not believe that employees would
think that NLRA rights are more
important than other statutory rights,
merely because the notice of NLRA
rights is somewhat larger than notices
prescribed under some other statutes. It
would seem that, upon learning of all of
their rights in the workplace, employees
will determine from their understanding
of the rights themselves, rather than the
size of the various posters, which rights
(if any) are more important to them than
others. In the Board’s view, adopting a
subjective ‘‘3′ rule’’ or a ‘‘legibility
standard’’ could lead to disagreements
over whether a particular poster was
‘‘legible’’ or could be read at a distance
of 3 feet. In addition, if, as some
comments contend (without citing
specifics), the size of the Board’s notice
will pose a problem for manufacturers
of consolidated posters to include it
with posters detailing other workplace
rights, that would seem to be a problem
best left to those manufacturers to solve.
c. Language Issues
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
The proposed rule requires that,
‘‘[w]here a significant portion of an
employer’s workforce is not proficient
in English, the employer must provide
the notice in the language the
employees speak.’’ This is the same
standard applied in the Department of
Labor’s notice of NLRA rights for federal
contractors (29 CFR 471.2(d)) and in the
notice required under the Family and
Medical Leave Act (29 CFR 825.300(4)).
Many comments support the
requirement and availability of
translated notices, particularly as an
essential way of informing immigrant
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54029
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
employees about their rights. 126 But
several comments complain that the
rule does not define ‘‘significant.’’ 127
Baker & McKenzie proposes that the
standard be 40 percent specifically of
the employer’s production and
maintenance workforce, while the
National Immigration Law Center
proposes a 5 percent standard. Another
comment urges that translated notices
be required whenever any of the
employees are not proficient in
English. 128 The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce asserts that a safe harbor is
needed for employers when a notice in
a particular language is not yet available
from the Board. Moreover, a few
comments contend that the Board
should also provide Braille notices for
vision-impaired employees, as well as
audio versions for illiterate employees,
and versions of the notice that are
adaptable to assistive technologies. 129
One individual proposes that the rule
mandate that employers read the notice
to employees when they are hired and
to all employees annually.
Having carefully considered the
comments, the Board has decided to
define ‘‘significant’’ in terms of foreignlanguage
speakers as 20 percent or more
of an employer’s workforce. Thus, if as
many as 20 percent of an employer’s
employees are not proficient in English
but speak the same foreign language, the
employer must post the notice in that
language, both physically and
electronically (if the employer is
otherwise required to post the notice
electronically). If an employer’s
workforce includes two or more groups
constituting at least 20 percent of the
workforce who speak different
languages, the employer must either
physically post the notice in each of
those languages or, at the employer’s
option, post the notice in the language
spoken by the largest group of
employees and provide each employee
in each of the other language groups a
copy of the notice in the appropriate
language. If such an employer is also
required to post the notice
electronically, it must do so in each of
those languages. If some of an
employer’s employees speak a language
not spoken by employees constituting at
least 20 percent of the employer’s
workforce, the employer is encouraged,
but not required, either to provide the
126 See, e.g., comments of National Immigration
Law Center, Legal Aid Society—Employment Law
Center, and La Raza Centro Legal; Filipino
Advocates for Justice.
127 See, e.g., comments of COLLE; Food Marketing
Institute (FMI).
128 Georgetown law students.
129 See, e.g., Baker & McKenzie; Heritage
Foundation; Georgetown law students.
notice to those employees in their
respective language or languages or to
direct them to the Board’s Web site,
http://www.nlrb.gov, where they can
obtain copies of the notice in their
respective languages. The Board has
also decided to add to the notice
instructions for obtaining foreignlanguage
translations of the notice.
Employers will be required to request
foreign-language notices from the Board
or obtain them from the Board’s Web
site in the same manner as the Englishlanguage
notice. If an employer requests
from the Board a notice in a particular
language in which the notice is not
available, the requesting employer will
not be liable for non-compliance with
the rule until the notice becomes
available in that language.
With respect to employees who are
vision-impaired or those who are
illiterate, employers may consult the
Board’s Regional Office on a case-bycase
basis for guidance on appropriate
methods of providing the required
notice, including by audio recording.
d. Electronic Posting
Many employer comments oppose the
requirement for electronic notice. The
Coalition for a Democratic Workplace
points out that other agencies do not
require both electronic and physical
posting and asserts that only one
method is necessary. For example, the
Coalition notes that the Family and
Medical Leave Act notice obligation is
satisfied by electronic posting alone,
and other statutes do not mention
electronic posting. The National Council
of Agricultural Employers urges the
Board to require electronic posting only
if the employer posts other statutory or
regulatory notices in that fashion.
Another proposes that employers be
permitted to choose either physical or
electronic posting. The National
Association of Manufacturers remarks
that the proposed rule breaks new
ground for using an employer’s email
system to communicate information
about ‘‘union membership.’’ The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce suggests that this
aspect of the rule would chill
employers’ use of new technologies. On
the other hand, the AFL–CIO and
several other commenters 130 support
electronic as well as physical posting;
the Center for American Progress Action
Fund, among others, points out that
electronic communications at work are
standard now.
After carefully considering these
comments, the Board concludes that
electronic posting will substantially
130 See, e.g., comments of Gibson, Dunn, Cohen,
Leifer & Yellig, P.C.; Beeson, Tayer & Bodine.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
assist in providing the prescribed notice
to employees. As some comments state,
electronic communication is now a
routine practice in many workplaces
and the source of much information
from employers to their employees.
However, the Board has clarified the
final rule to mandate only that, if an
employer customarily communicates
personnel rules or policies to its
employees in that manner, it must also
do so with respect to the notice of
employee rights under the NLRA. The
concern that the rule will discourage
employers from using new technologies
is apparently not widely shared and, in
the Board’s view, is implausible.
Although the Board recognizes that
some other statutes and regulations do
not require electronic notice, it notes
that they generally predated the routine
use of electronic communications in the
workplace. Having only recently begun
ordering electronic posting of remedial
notices, 131 the Board has limited
experience in this area, and employers
are encouraged to contact the local
Regional Office with questions about
this provision. The Board does not agree
that employers should be permitted to
choose whether to provide physical or
electronic notice, because some
employers could select the less effective
of these alternatives, thus undermining
the purpose of the rule. Finally, the
rights stated in the notice are not
accurately described as pertaining solely
to union membership, and the notice is
not intended to promote union
membership or union representation.
Rather, the notice addresses a broad
range of employee legal rights under the
NLRA, which involve protected
concerted activity as well as union
activity in both organized and
unorganized workplaces, and also the
right to refrain from any such activity.
Many employer comments note that
the proposed rule also does not define
‘‘customarily’’ as it pertains to
electronic posting in § 104.202(f), i.e.,
the type and degree of communication
that triggers the requirement. 132
Numerous employers also participated
in a postcard campaign objecting,
among other things, that employers use
a wide variety of technology to
communicate with employees and that
the rule could require them to use all
methods to convey the notice. 133 For
131 J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 9 (2010).
132 See, e.g., comments of International
Foodservice Distributors Association (IFDA);
Associated Builders and Contractors; Los Angeles
County Business Federation; National Roofing
Contractors Association.
133 See, e.g., comments of American Home
Furnishings Alliance; Seawright Custom Precast;
Continued
54030 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
example, they ask whether an employer
that occasionally uses text messaging or
Twitter to communicate with employees
would have to use those technologies
and, if so, how they would be able to
comply with the rule, in view of the
length restrictions of these media. The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce raises the
same issue regarding faxing, voice mail,
and instant messaging. The National
Roofing Contractors Association notes
that some employers use email to
communicate with certain employees,
while other employees have no access to
email during their work day. As to email
communication itself, an individual
observes that many employees change
jobs every 3 to 4 years, and an email
reaches only those in the workforce at
a specific time. The same comment
notes that the proposed rule does not
state when or how often email notice
should be provided. Three Georgetown
law students recommend that the rule
mandate email as well as intranet notice
to employees when it goes into effect
and written notice to new employees
within a week of their starting
employment.
The Board responds that, as discussed
above regarding the location of posting,
‘‘customarily’’ is used in its normal
meaning. This provision of the rule
would not apply to an employer that
only occasionally uses electronic means
to communicate with employees.
However, in view of the numerous
comments expressing concern over the
proposed rule’s email posting
requirements, the Board has decided not
to require employers to provide the
notice to employees by means of email
and the other forms of electronic
communication listed in the previous
paragraph. In the Board’s judgment, the
potential for confusion and the prospect
of requiring repeated notifications in
order to reach new employees outweigh
the benefits that could be derived at the
margin from such notifications. All
employers subject to the rule will be
required to post the notice physically in
their facilities; and employers who
customarily post notices to employees
regarding personnel rules or policies on
an internet or intranet site will be
required to post the Board’s notice on
those sites as well. Moreover, those
notices (unlike the Board’s election and
remedial notices) must remain posted;
thus, it is reasonable to expect that even
though some employees may not see the
notices immediately, more and more
will see them and learn about their
NLRA rights as time goes by.
Accordingly, the only electronic
Mount Sterling, Kentucky Chamber of Commerce;
U.S. Xpress, Inc.
postings required under the final rule
will be those on internet or intranet
sites.
Many comments address the
characteristics of electronic posting, as
prescribed in § 104.202(f). In the NPRM,
the Board proposed not to prescribe the
size, clarity, location, or brightness of an
electronic notice or link to the notice,
but rather require that it be at least as
prominent as other electronic notices to
employees, as the Department of Labor’s
rule requires. No comments suggest
more specific requirements; the
Michigan Health & Hospital Association
argues that such requirements would
result in inadvertent noncompliance.
The Board has decided to adopt the
Department of Labor’s approach, as
proposed in the NPRM.
Baker & McKenzie urges that the title
of the link in the proposed rule be
changed to ‘‘Employee Rights under the
National Labor Relations Act’’ rather
than ‘‘Important Notice about
Employees Rights to Organize and
Bargain Collectively with Their
Employers.’’ The Board agrees and has
revised the rule accordingly.
A comment from Vigilant states that
a link to the Board’s Web site, which is
one means of electronic posting, should
not be required to include the
introductory language of the notice. The
Board agrees, noting that the
Department of Labor takes this
approach, and will not require that
electronic links to the Board’s Web site
include the introductory language.
For the foregoing reasons, the Board
has decided to retain the posting
requirements as proposed in the NPRM,
modified as indicated above.
e. Compliance With the Department of
Labor’s Rule
Several comments opposing the
proposed rule urge that, if the rule
becomes final, the Board should retain
the ‘‘safe harbor’’ provided for Federal
contractors that comply with the
Department of Labor’s notice posting
rule. 134 However, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce states that some employers
post the Department of Labor’s notice at
facilities where it is not required or
where Federal contract work is
performed only sporadically. It
questions whether such employers must
replace the Department of Labor’s notice
with the Board’s when no contract work
is being performed, or whether they can
comply with the Board’s rule by leaving
the Department of Labor’s notice in
place. The Chamber proposes that
134 See, e.g., comments of IFDA; Estes; The Sack
Company; National Roofing Contractors
Association.
employers be allowed to choose to
maintain the Department of Labor’s
notice, although another comment
asserts that employees might think that
the notice is no longer applicable
because of the lack of a current contract.
Another comment raises the possibility
that either the Board or the Department
of Labor could decide to change its
notice and emphasized that they need to
be identical in order to provide the safe
harbor. The Board responds that a
Federal contractor that complies with
the Department of Labor’s noticeposting
rule will be deemed in
compliance with the Board’s
requirement. 135
3. Exceptions
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
The rule applies only to employers
that are subject to the NLRA. Under
NLRA Section 2(2), ‘‘employer’’
excludes the United States government,
any wholly owned government
corporation, any Federal Reserve Bank,
any State or political subdivision, and
any person subject to the Railway Labor
Act, 45 U.S.C. 151 et seq. 29 U.S.C.
152(2). Thus, under the proposed rule,
those excluded entities are not required
to post the notice of employee rights.
The proposed rule also does not apply
to entities that employ only individuals
who are not considered ‘‘employees’’
under the NLRA. See Subpart A, below;
29 U.S.C. 152(3). Finally, the proposed
rule does not apply to entities over
which the Board has been found not to
have jurisdiction, or over which the
Board has chosen through regulation or
adjudication not to assert
jurisdiction. 136 The Board proposed that
all employers covered under the NLRA
would be subject to the notice posting
rule. 75 FR 80413.
The Coalition for a Democratic
Workplace argues that the final rule
cannot be applied to religiouslyaffiliated
employers. The Coalition
argues that assertion of jurisdiction
would ‘‘substantially burden [such
employers’] exercise of religion in
violation of both the First Amendment
and the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act.’’ Similarly, Seyfarth Shaw contends
that religiously-affiliated healthcare
135 A few comments ask whether the Board’s rule
would preempt the Department of Labor’s rule.
Because the answer to that question would not
affect the validity of the Board’s rule, the Board
finds it unnecessary to take a position on that issue
in this proceeding.
136 The proposed rule excludes small businesses
whose impact on interstate commerce is de minimis
or so slight that they do not meet the Board’s
discretionary jurisdiction requirements. See
generally An Outline of Law and Procedure in
Representation Cases, Chapter 1, found on the
Board’s Web site, http://www.nlrb.gov, and cases
cited therein.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54031
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
institutions should be excluded from
coverage if they are nonprofit and hold
themselves out to the public as being
religious.
The Board examines jurisdictional
issues on a case-by-case basis, and the
Board’s jurisdiction jurisprudence is
highly complex. The Board has asserted
jurisdiction over some religiouslyaffiliated
employers in the past, but has
declined to assert jurisdiction over other
religiously-affiliated employers. See,
e.g., Ecclesiastical Maintenance Service,
320 NLRB 70 (1995), and St. Edmund’s
High School, 337 NLRB 1260 (2002). In
Ukiah Valley Medical Center, the Board
found that neither the First Amendment
nor the Religious Restoration Act
precludes the Board from asserting
jurisdiction over a religiously-affiliated
employer. 332 NLRB 602 (2000). If an
employer is unsure whether the Board
has jurisdiction over its operations, it
may contact the Board’s regional office.
In its comment, the United Stated
Postal Service points out that it has
different statutory rules from those
covering other private sector employees.
Labor relations in the Postal Service are
governed by Chapter 12 of the Postal
Reorganization Act of 1970, 39 U.S.C.
1201 et seq. Section 1209(a) of the
Postal Reorganization Act generally
makes the NLRA applicable to all
employee-management relations ‘‘to the
extent not inconsistent with the
provisions of this title.’’ As raised by the
comment, there are indeed several areas
in which the Postal Reorganization Act
is inconsistent with the NLRA. The
principal differences are that an agency
shop is prohibited (id. section 1209(a))
and that postal employees may not
strike. Id. Section
410(b)(1)(incorporating 5 U.S.C. 7311).
In light of these differences, the Board
agrees that a postal worker-specific
notice is necessary. The Board,
however, does not wish to create a
notice without the benefit of specific
public comment on this issue.
Accordingly, the Board will exclude the
United States Postal Service from
coverage under the final rule; the Board
may, at a later date, request comments
on a postal worker-specific notice.
Subpart B—Enforcement and
Complaint Procedures
Subpart B of the rule contains
procedures for enforcement of the
employee notice-posting requirement. In
crafting Subpart B, the Board was
mindful of the need to identify an
effective remedy for noncompliance
with the notice-posting requirement.
The Board gave careful consideration to
several alternative approaches to
enforcing the rule’s notice-posting
requirements. Those alternatives, not all
of which are mutually exclusive, were
(1) Finding the failure to post the
required notices to be an unfair labor
practice; (2) tolling the statute of
limitations for filing unfair labor
practice charges against employers that
fail to post the notices; (3) considering
the willful failure to post the notices as
evidence of unlawful motive in unfair
labor practice cases; (4) voluntary
compliance. 75 FR 80413–80414.
As explained in the NPRM, the Board
considered but tentatively rejected
relying solely on voluntary compliance.
This option logically would appear to be
the least conducive to an effective
enforcement of the notice-posting
requirement, and the Board’s limited
experience with voluntary posting of
notices of employee rights seems to
confirm this. When an election petition
is filed, the Board’s Regional Office
sends the employer Form NLRB–5492,
Notice to Employees, together with a
leaflet containing significant ‘‘Rights of
Employees.’’ See the Board’s
Casehandling Manual, Part Two—
Representation Proceedings, Section
11008.5, found on the Board’s Web site,
http://www.nlrb.gov. The Regional
Office also asks employers to post the
notice of employee rights in the
workplace; however, the Board’s
experience is that the notices are seldom
posted. Id. at 80414. Moreover, because
the notice is voluntary and there is no
enforcement scheme, there is no remedy
to fix the problem when the notice is
not posted. The Board has found
nothing in the comments to the NPRM
that would give it reason to believe that
voluntary compliance would be any
more effective under the present notice
rule. Therefore, the Board has decided
not to rely on voluntary compliance.
Instead the final rule provides that
failing to post the notice may be found
to be an unfair labor practice and may
also, in appropriate circumstances, be
grounds for tolling the statute of
limitations. In addition, a knowing and
willful failure to post employee notices
may be found to be evidence of
unlawful motive in an unfair labor
practice case. (As the Board also
explained in the NPRM, it did not
consider imposing monetary fines for
noncompliance, because the Board lacks
the statutory authority to impose
‘‘penalties or fines.’’ See, e.g., Republic
Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 7, 10–12
(1940).) These provisions have two
purposes: to ensure that any violations
of the notice-posting requirement that
occur may be remedied where
necessary, and to describe how
violations of the notice-posting
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
requirement may affect other Board
proceedings. 137
The Board received several hundred
comments regarding the proposed
means of enforcing the notice posting
requirement. Those that favor
implementing the rule also favor the
proposed enforcement mechanisms. 138
Those opposing the rule generally
oppose all three enforcement
mechanisms.
A. Noncompliance as an Unfair Labor
Practice
The rule requires employers to inform
employees of their NLRA rights because
the Board believes that employees must
know their rights in order to exercise
them effectively. Accordingly, the Board
may find that an employer that fails or
refuses to post the required notice of
employee rights violates Section 8(a)(1)
of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) by
‘‘interfer[ing] with, restrain[ing], or
coerc[ing] employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in section 7 (29
U.S.C. 157).’’
As it explained in the NPRM, the
Board expects that most employers that
fail to post the required notice will do
so simply because they are unaware of
the rule, and that when it is called to
their attention, they will comply
without the need for formal
administrative action or litigation.
When that is not the case, the Board’s
customary procedures for investigating
and adjudicating alleged unfair labor
practices may be invoked. See NLRA
Sections 10 and 11, 29 U.S.C. 160, 161;
29 CFR part 102, subpart B. 139 When the
Board finds a violation, it will
customarily order the employer to cease
and desist and to post the notice of
137 The tolling and animus provisions are not
remedies in the usual sense of the term; however,
these provisions inform the public of the impact
that violations of the notice posting obligation may
have in other NLRB proceedings. As described
below, these impacts are not a ‘‘punishment’’ for
noncompliance. To the contrary, the tolling
provision is intended to ensure that noncompliance
with the notice posting requirement does not
prejudice innocent employees. And the animus
provision is intended to inform the public that
knowing and willful violations of the rule may
support an inference of animus toward NLRA
rights.
138 See, e.g., Harkin and Miller, National
Employment Law Project, Public Justice Center, Inc.
139 The Board’s General Counsel has
unreviewable discretion as to whether to issue a
complaint in an unfair labor practice proceeding.
See, e.g., Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 182 (1967).
The General Counsel has exercised that discretion
to refuse to proceed with meritorious charges when
it would not serve the purposes of the Act. See
General Counsel memoranda 02–08 and 95–15. This
discretion includes dismissing any charge filed
against an employer that is not covered by the
Board’s jurisdictional requirements.
54032 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
employee rights as well as a remedial
notice. 140 75 FR 80414.
The comments opposing this proposal
make three principal arguments. First,
only Congress, not the Board, has the
authority to ‘‘create a new unfair labor
practice.’’ 141 Second, even if the Board
possesses such authority, it has not
identified the Section 7 rights that
would be interfered with by an
employer’s failure to post the notice. 142
Third, ‘‘interfer[ing] with, restrain[ing],
or coerc[ing]’’ employees within the
meaning of NLRA Section 8(a)(1)
necessarily involves action, not failure
to act; therefore, failure to post the
notice cannot violate Section 8(a)(1). 143
The Board finds no merit in any of these
contentions.
To begin with, it is incorrect to say
that the Board lacks the authority to find
that failure to post the notice violates
Section 8(a)(1) without Congressional
approval. It is true, as the Society for
Human Resource Management states,
that ‘‘Section 10(a) of the Act
specifically limits the NLRB’s powers to
preventing only the unfair labor
practices listed in Section 8 of the Act.
Section 8 is silent regarding any notice
posting requirement (emphasis in
original).’’ However, as the Supreme
Court remarked long ago,
The [NLRA] did not undertake the
impossible task of specifying in precise and
unmistakable language each incident which
would constitute an unfair labor practice. On
the contrary that Act left to the Board the
work of applying the Act’s general
prohibitory language in the light of the
infinite combinations of events which might
be charged as violative of its terms. Thus a
‘‘rigid scheme of remedies’’ is avoided and
administrative flexibility within appropriate
statutory limitations obtained to accomplish
the dominant purpose of the legislation.
Republic Aviation Corporation v. NLRB,
324 U.S. 793, 798 (1945) (citation
omitted). Accordingly, since its
creation, the Board in interpreting
Section 8(a)(1) has found numerous
actions as to which ‘‘Section 8 is
silent’’—e.g., coercively interrogating
employees about their protected
concerted activities, engaging in
140 Consistent with precedent, it will be unlawful
for an employer to threaten or retaliate against an
employee for filing charges or testifying in a Board
proceeding involving an alleged violation of the
notice-posting requirement. NLRA Sections 8(a)(1),
8(a)(4), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (4); Romar Refuse
Removal, 314 NLRB 658 (1994).
141 See, e.g., comments of FMI, Assisted Living
Federation of America (ALFA).
142 See, e.g., comment of U. S. Chamber of
Commerce.
143 See, e.g., comments of Employment and Labor
Law Committee, Association of Corporate Counsel
(‘‘ACC’’); California Chamber of Commerce
(California Chamber); and National Council of
Agricultural Employers (NCAE).
surveillance of employees’ union
activities, threatening employees with
retaliation for engaging in protected
activities—to violate Section 8(a)(1) by
‘‘interfer[ing] with, restrain[ing], or
coerc[ing] employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in section 7’’ of
the NLRA. Section 8 is equally silent
concerning unions’ duty to inform
employees of their rights under NLRB v.
General Motors, above, and
Communications Workers v. Beck,
above, before attempting to obligate
them pursuant to a union-security
clause, yet the Board finds that a
union’s failure to provide that notice
restrains and coerces employees in
violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A).
California Saw & Knife Works, above,
320 NLRB at 233, 259, 261. 144
Because, as described in detail above,
notice posting is necessary to ensure
effective exercise of Section 7 rights, a
refusal to post the required notice is at
least an interference with employees’
exercise of those rights. For these
reasons, in finding that an employer’s
failure to post the required notice
interferes with, restrains, or coerces
employees in the exercise of their NLRA
rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), the
Board is acting consistently with its
settled practice. Some comments claim
that the Board has not identified any
specific Section 7 right to justify this
remedy. But such specificity is not
needed, because all Section 7 rights are
implicated by an employer’s failure to
post the required notice. As previously
stated, there is a strong nexus between
knowledge of Section 7 rights and their
free exercise. It therefore follows that an
employer’s failure to post this notice,
which informs employees of their
Section 7 rights, reasonably tends to
interfere with the exercise of such
rights.
Finally, although most violations of
the NLRA involve actions rather than
failures to act, there are instances in
which a failure to act may be found to
interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights. Thus, a union’s failure
to provide the required notices under
NLRB v. General Motors, above, and
144 See Harkin and Miller. Although the Board
suggested in a footnote in California Saw that there
was no obligation to inform employees of their
Section 7 rights, 320 NLRB at 232 n. 42, this dicta
merely indicated that no such obligation had yet
been recognized in that particular context. To the
extent it could be read as denying that such an
obligation may exist, it is the considered view of the
Board that this reading must be rejected. Similarly,
the statement in U.S. Postal Service, 241 N.L.R.B.
141, 152 (1979), regarding affirmative notice
obligations is limited to Weingarten rights, and, in
any event, does not suggest that notice of NLRA
rights may never be required.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
Communications Workers v. Beck,
above, violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the
NLRA. California Saw & Knife Works,
above, 320 NLRB at 233, 259, 261. An
employer that fails or refuses to execute
an agreed-to collective-bargaining
agreement on request of the union
violates Section 8(d), 8(a)(5) and,
derivatively, Section 8(a)(1). An
employer that fails to provide relevant
information requested by the union that
represents the employer’s employees
violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1). See, e.g.,
NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149
(1956).
The NLRA’s recognition that a failure
to perform a legal duty may constitute
unlawful interference, coercion or
restraint is not unique. Courts have
expressly held that the failure to post
notice required by regulation can be an
‘‘interference’’ with employee Family
and Medical Leave Act rights. In a
provision that ‘‘largely mimics th[e
language of] § 8(a)(1) of the NLRA,’’
Bachelder v. Am. W. Airlines, 259 F. 3d
1112, 1123 (9th Cir. 2001), the FMLA
states that ‘‘[i]t shall be unlawful for any
employer to interfere with, restrain, or
deny the exercise of or the attempt to
exercise, any right provided under this
title.’’ 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1). In
interpreting this language, the
Department of Labor’s regulations
specifically state that failure to post the
required notice of FMLA rights ‘‘may
constitute an interference with,
restraint, or denial of the exercise of an
employee’s FMLA rights’’ under section
2615(a)(1). 29 CFR 825.300(e). Courts
have agreed, finding that the failure to
provide FMLA notices is an ‘‘adverse
action’’ against the employee that
supports a prima facie case of
interference. Greenwell v. Charles
Machine Works, Inc., (W.D. Ok. April
15, 2011); Smith v. Westchester County,
(S.D.N.Y. February 14, 2011).
Accordingly, the Board finds no
impediment to declaring that an
employer’s failure to post the required
notice will violate Section 8(a)(1). 145
As it explained in the NPRM,
however, the Board expects that, in
practice, few violations will be found
for failures to post the notice. The Board
anticipates that most employers that fail
to post the notice will do so because
they are unaware of the rule, and that
when they learn about the rule, they
will post the notice without the need for
formal administrative action or
litigation. 75 FR 80414. To that end,
§ 104.212(a) of the rule states that if an
145 ALFA contends that failure to post a Boardrequired
notice is not an unfair labor practice, but
the authorities cited do not support that
proposition.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54033
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
unfair labor practice charge is filed
alleging failure to post the notice, ‘‘the
Regional Director will make reasonable
efforts to persuade the respondent
employer to post the * * * notice
expeditiously,’’ and that ‘‘[i]f the
employer does so, the Board expects
that there will rarely be a need for
further administrative proceedings.’’ 75
FR 80419.
Numerous comments assert that
finding the failure to post the notice to
be an unfair labor practice is too harsh
a remedy, especially for small
employers that are more likely to be
excusably unaware of the rule. 146 As
just stated, in practice it should almost
never be necessary for proceedings to
reach that point. For the few employers
that may ultimately be found to have
violated Section 8(a)(1) by failing to post
the notice of employee rights, the only
certain consequences will be an order to
cease and desist and that the notice and
a remedial notice be posted; those
remedies do not strike the Board as
severe.
Michigan Health & Hospital
Association urges that an employer be
allowed to correct an initial failure to
post the notice without further
consequences; Fireside Distributors, Inc.
agrees and asks that technical violations
of the rule not be subject to a finding of
a violation. The Heritage Foundation
backs the same approach for inadvertent
failures to post. The Board disagrees. To
repeat, the Board anticipates that most
employers that inadvertently fail to post
the notice will do so on being informed
of the posting requirement, and that in
those circumstances further proceedings
will rarely be required. However, the
Board believes that this matter is best
handled through the General Counsel’s
traditional exercise of prosecutorial
discretion in accordance with the
directions given here.
California Chamber and NCAE
contend that the Board should specify
the ‘‘reasonable efforts’’ a Regional
Director will make to persuade an
employer to post the notice when a
charge alleging a failure to post has been
filed. They propose that the rule be
amended to state that the Board will
send the employer at least two mailed
letters, with the notice enclosed,
requesting that the employer post the
notice within a specified period of time,
preferably 30 days. They also assert that
the Board must specify the
circumstances in which additional
proceedings will be appropriate. The
Heritage Foundation urges that
§ 104.212(a) be modified to state that if
146 See, e.g., comments of St Mar Enterprises, Inc.
and National Federation of Independent Business.
an employer promptly posts the notice,
‘‘there will be no further administrative
proceedings, unless the Board has
information giving the Board reason to
believe that the preceding failure to do
so was intentional.’’ The Board rejects
these suggestions because they would
create unnecessary obstacles to effective
enforcement of the notice requirement.
That requirement is straightforward, and
compliance should be a simple matter.
The Board believes that the General
Counsel should have discretion to
address particular cases of noncompliance
efficiently and
appropriately, depending upon the
circumstances.
B. Tolling the Section 10(b) Statute of
Limitations
NLRA Section 10(b) provides in part
that ‘‘no complaint shall issue based
upon any unfair labor practice occurring
more than six months prior to the filing
of the charge with the Board[.]’’ 29
U.S.C. 160(b). However, as the Board
stated in the NPRM, the 6-month filing
period does not begin to run until the
charging party has actual or constructive
notice of the allegedly unlawful
conduct. See, e.g., John Morrell & Co.,
304 NLRB 896, 899 (1991), review
denied 998 F.2d 7 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
(table). 75 FR 80414. This makes
intuitive sense, because it would be
unfair to expect charges to be filed
before the charging party could
reasonably have known that the law was
violated. Similar concerns for fairness
justify tolling the statute of limitations
where an employee, although aware of
the conduct in question, is excusably
unaware that the conduct is unlawful
because mandatory notice was not given
to the employee. The Board found that
widespread ignorance of NLRA rights
justified requiring notice to be posted.
The Board cited the observation of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit in a case involving the failure to
post the notice required under the
ADEA, that ‘‘[t]he [ADEA] posting
requirement was undoubtedly created
because Congress recognized that the
very persons protected by the Act might
be unaware of its existence.’’ Bonham v.
Dresser Industries, 569 F.2d 187, 193
(1977), cert. denied 439 U.S. 821 (1978).
Accordingly, the Board proposed that
tolling the 10(b) period for filing unfair
labor practice charges might be
appropriate where the required notice
has not been posted. 75 FR 80414. For
the reasons discussed below, the Board
adheres to that view.
Section 10(b) is a statute of
limitations, and statutes of limitations
are presumed to include equitable
tolling whenever the statute is silent or
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
ambiguous on the issue. Irwin v. Dep’t
Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 94–96
(1990); Zipes v. Trans World Airlines,
Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 392–98 (1982); see
Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 49
(2002) (‘‘It is hornbook law that
limitations periods are customarily
subject to equitable tolling, unless
tolling would be inconsistent with the
text of the relevant statute.’’ (quotations
and citations omitted)); Hallstrom v.
Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 27
(1989) (‘‘The running of such statutes is
traditionally subject to equitable
tolling.’’); Honda v. Clark, 386 U.S. 484,
501 (1967); Glus v. Brooklyn E.D.
Terminal, 359 U.S. 231, 232–33 (1959)
(equitable tolling of statutes of
limitations is ‘‘[d]eeply rooted in our
jurisprudence’’); Holmberg v.
Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396–97 (1946)
(equitable tolling is ‘‘read into every
federal statute of limitation’’).
In Zipes, the Supreme Court held that
the timeliness provision of Title VII’s
charge-filing requirement was ‘‘subject
to waiver, estoppel and equitable
tolling.’’ 455 U.S. at 392–98. The
Supreme Court expressly analogized to
the NLRA, and stated that Section10(b)
was not jurisdictional: ‘‘[T]he time
requirement for filing an unfair labor
practice charge under the National
Labor Relations Act operates as a statute
of limitations subject to recognized
equitable doctrines and not as a
restriction of the jurisdiction of the
National Labor Relations Board.’’ Id. at
n.11. Zipes strongly supports the
proposed rule. The analogy between
Title VII and the NLRA is well
established, and neither the holding of
Zipes regarding Title VII nor Zipes’
characterization of 10(b) has ever been
called into doubt.
Notices of employment rights are
intended, in part, to advise employees
of the kinds of conduct that may violate
their rights so that they may seek
appropriate remedies when violations
occur. Failure to post required notices
deprives employees of both the
knowledge of their rights and of the
availability of avenues of redress.
Accordingly, a substantial majority of
the courts of appeals—including the
First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh
Circuits—have adopted the doctrine that
the failure to post required employment
law notices may result in equitable
tolling of the statute of limitations.
Mercado v. Ritz-Carlton San Juan Hotel,
410 F.3d 41, 47–48, 95 FEP Cases 1464
(1st Cir. 2005) (Title VII); Bonham v.
Dresser Industries, above, 569 F.2d at
193 (ADEA); Hammer v. Cardio Medical
Products, Inc., 131 Fed. Appx. 829, 831–
832 (3d Cir. 2005) (Title VII and ADEA);
54034 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Vance v. Whirlpool Corp., 716 F.2d
1010 (4th Cir. 1983) (describing notice
posting tolling as ‘‘the prevailing view
of the courts’’); Elliot v. Group Med. &
Surgical Serv., 714 F.2d 556, 563–64
(5th Cir. 1983); EEOC v. Kentucky State
Police Dept., 80 F.3d 1086, 1096 (6th
Cir. 1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 963
(1996); Posey v. Skyline Corp., 702 F.2d
102 (7th Cir. 1983); Schroeder v. Copley
Newspaper, 879 F.2d 266 (7th Cir.
1989); Kephart v. Inst. Gas Tech., 581
F.2d 1287, 1289 (7th Cir. 1978);
Beshears v. Asbill, 930 F.2d 1348 (8th
Cir. 1991); McClinton v. Alabama By-
Prods. Corp., 743 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir.
1984); see also Henchy v. City of
Absecon, 148 F. Supp. 2d 435, 439 (D.
N.J. 2001); Kamens v. Summit Stainless,
Inc., 586 F. Supp. 324, 328 (E.D. Pa.
1984) (FLSA). 147 (But see Wilkerson v.
Siegfried Ins. Agency, Inc., 683 F.2d
344, 347 (10th Cir. 1982) (‘‘the simple
failure to post [Title VII and ADEA]
notices, without intent to actively
mislead the plaintiff respecting the
cause of action, does not extend the
time within which a claimant must file
his or her discrimination charge.’’))
After careful consideration, the Board
is persuaded that the prevailing judicial
view should apply in the NLRA context
as well. 148 As an equitable concept,
equitable tolling is a matter of fairness.
The Board has determined that many
employees are unaware of their NLRA
rights and has devised a minimally
burdensome means of attempting to
rectify that situation—requiring
employers to post workplace notices
informing employees of those rights. To
bar an employee who is excusably
unaware of the NLRA from seeking a
remedy for a violation of NLRA rights
because he or she failed to file an unfair
labor practice charge within the 10(b)
period, when the employer did not post
the required notice, would unfairly
deprive the employee of the protection
of the Act because of the employer’s
failure to comply with its legal
responsibilities. To deny equitable
tolling in such circumstances ‘‘would
grant to the employee a right to be
informed without redress for violation.’’
Bonham v. Dresser Industries, above,
569 F.2d at 193. 149
147 See comments of Harkin and Miller, AFL–CIO,
and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
148 The Board has broad discretion to interpret
10(b), including equitable tolling, in accordance
with its experience administering the Act. Lodge 64,
IAM v. NLRB, 949 F.2d 441, 444 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
(deferring to the Board’s interpretation of 10(b)
equitable exceptions).
149 Under the final rule, the Board could also find
the failure to post the notice to be an unfair labor
practice, and could, if appropriate, consider a
willful failure to post to be evidence of unlawful
motive in an unfair labor practice case. However,
The Board received many comments
opposing this proposed rule provision.
Several comments assert that, when a
charging party is unaware of the facts
supporting the finding of an unfair labor
practice, the Board tolls the 10(b) period
only when the charged party has
fraudulently concealed those facts from
the charging party. 150 That is not so.
The Board has long held, with court
approval, that the 10(b) period begins to
run only when the charging party has
notice that the NLRA has been violated.
The party asserting the 10(b) defense
has the burden to show such notice; it
may do so by showing that the charging
party had either actual or constructive
knowledge of the alleged unfair labor
practice prior to the 10(b) period. See,
e.g., Broadway Volkswagen, 342 NLRB
1244, 1246 (2004), enfd. sub nom. East
Bay Automotive Council v. NLRB, 483
F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 2007); University
Moving & Storage Co., 350 NLRB 6, 7,
18 (2007); John Morrell & Co., above,
304 NLRB at 899; Pullman Building
Company, 251 NLRB 1048 (1980), enfd.
691 F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1982) (table);
Burgess Construction, 227 NLRB 765,
766 (1977), enfd. 596 F.2d 378 (9th Cir.
1978), cert. denied 440 U.S. 940 (1979).
Knowledge may be imputed if the
charging party would have discovered
the unlawful conduct by exercising
reasonable or due diligence. Broadway
Volkswagen, above, 342 NLRB at 1246.
Certainly, the Board has found it
appropriate to toll the 10(b) period
when the charging party was excusably
unaware of the pertinent facts because
the charged party had fraudulently
concealed them; see, e.g., Burgess
Construction, above, 227 NLRB at 766;
but tolling is not limited to such
circumstances. Pullman Building
Company, above, 251 NLRB at 1048.
To the extent that the comments argue
that the Board should not engage in
equitable tolling of the 10(b) period
when an employer has merely failed to
post the notice but not engaged in
fraudulent concealment, 151 the Board
disagrees. Fraudulent concealment
concerns a different kind of equitable
doctrine, and is not directly relevant to
the notice posting equitable tolling
doctrine hereby adopted. See Mercado,
above, 410 F.3d at 46–47 n.8 (employer
misconduct and equitable tolling
in the absence of equitable tolling of the 10(b)
period, such ‘‘redress’’ would not aid an employee
who was excusably unaware of his or her NLRA
rights, failed to file a timely charge, and thus was
denied any remedy for violation of those rights. Cf.
Kanakis Co., 293 NLRB 435, 436 fn. 10 (1989)
(possibility of criminal sanctions against employer
would be little comfort to charging party if deprived
of recourse to Board’s remedial processes).
150 See, e.g., comments of FMI, COLLE.
151 See, e.g., comments of FMI, COLLE.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
doctrine form ‘‘two distinct lines of
cases apply[ing] two distinct standards
to two distinct bases for equitable
tolling’’).
Some comments argue that because
Section 10(b) contains a limited
exception to the 6-month filing period
for employees in the military, it is
improper for the Board to toll the 10(b)
period under other circumstances. 152
The Board rejects this argument as
foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s
holding in Zipes, above, and by the long
line of Board and court decisions
finding tolling of the 10(b) period
appropriate. In any event, the exception
in Section 10(b) for persons in the
military provides that if the aggrieved
person ‘‘was prevented from filing such
charge by reason of service in the armed
forces, in which event the six-month
period shall be computed from the day
of his discharge.’’ This provision does
not toll the six-month period during
armed service; rather, it states that the
six-month period begins at discharge.
See Holland v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2549,
2561 (2010) (rejecting argument that
explicit exceptions to time limits in
nonjurisdictional statute of limitations
precluded equitable tolling). 153
A number of comments contend that
tolling the 10(b) period is contrary to the
salutary purpose of statutes of
limitations in general, and 10(b) in
particular, which is ‘‘to require diligent
prosecution of known claims, thereby
providing finality and predictability in
legal affairs and ensuring that claims
will be resolved while evidence is
reasonably available and fresh.’’ 154
Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, at
1546. The Board recognizes that with
the passage of time evidence can be lost
and witnesses die, move away, or their
memories fade; it therefore will not
lightly find that the 10(b) period should
be tolled. However, like the courts
whose decisions are cited above, the
Board also recognizes that equitable
tolling is a fundamental part of the
statute of limitations, and that inequity
results from barring an individual from
seeking relief from a violation of his or
her NLRA rights where the individual
excusably was unaware of these rights.
After all, the purpose of a statute of
limitations is to ‘‘require diligent
152 See, e.g., comments of California Chamber and
NCAE.
153 American Bus Association v. Slater, 231 F. 3d
1 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cited by California Chamber and
NCAE, did not concern equitable tolling and is
therefore inapposite. The court there also found that
Congress had expressly limited the sanctions
available under the Americans with Disabilities Act
to those enumerated in that statute; such is not the
case under the NLRA.
154 See, e.g., comments of FMI, COLLE, and U.S.
Chamber of Commerce.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54035
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
prosecution of known claims,’’ not
claims that are unknown to the injured
party. As to concerns that the statute of
limitations could be tolled for years,
‘‘perhaps indefinitely,’’ 155 the Board
responds that such a potential also
exists under other statutes, as well as
under the NLRA when a charging party
is unaware of the facts giving rise to an
alleged unfair labor practice. However,
at this point, concerns about the
unfairness of lengthy tolling periods are
entirely speculative. Tolling is an
equitable matter, and one factor to be
considered in deciding whether
equitable tolling is appropriate is
whether it would prejudice the
respondent. Mercado, above, 410 F.3d at
48. Accordingly, if a lengthy tolling of
the 10(b) period would prejudice an
employer in a given case, the Board
could properly consider that factor in
determining whether tolling was
appropriate in that case. 156
Several comments argue against
tolling the 10(b) period because
‘‘ignorance of the law is no excuse.’’ 157
This argument is amply refuted by the
court decisions cited above, in which
limitations periods under other
workplace statutes were tolled because
employers failed to post required
notices. Most notably, the Fifth Circuit
has emphasized that the failure to post
a required notice ‘‘vitiates the normal
assumption that an employee is aware
of his rights.’’ Elliot v. Group Med. &
Surgical Serv., 714 F.2d 556, 563–64
(5th Cir. 1983). In any event, the maxim
relied on is generally understood to
have arisen in order to prevent
individuals (usually in criminal cases)
from deliberately failing to ascertain
whether actions they contemplate taking
would be lawful, and then pleading
ignorance when accused of
lawbreaking. 158 In the Board’s view, this
reasoning loses much of its force when
applied to individuals, such as charging
parties in unfair labor practice cases,
who are not accused of any wrongdoing
but who claim to have been injured by
the unlawful actions of other parties.
The Board emphasizes, however, that
failure to post the required notice will
not automatically warrant a tolling
remedy. If an employer proves that an
155 See comments of Fisher & Phillips LLC and
National Grocers Association.
156 As to ACC’s concern that the rule could
potentially subject employers to unfair labor
practice charges based on conduct as far back as
1935, the Board stresses that tolling will be
available only in the case of unlawful conduct that
occurs after the rule takes effect.
157 See, e.g., comments of Coalition for a
Democratic Workplace and COLLE.
158 Moreover, even in criminal law, the principle
is not absolute. See, e.g., Lambert v. California, 355
U.S. 225 (1957).
employee had actual or constructive
knowledge of the conduct alleged to be
unlawful, as well as actual or
constructive knowledge that the
conduct violated the NLRA, and yet
failed to timely file an unfair labor
practice charge, the Board will not toll
the 10(b) period merely because of the
employer’s failure to post the notice. Cf.
John Morrell & Co., above, 304 NLRB at
899.
The Board asked for comments
concerning whether unions filing unfair
labor practice charges should be deemed
to have constructive knowledge of the
unlawful character of the conduct at
issue. All of the comments that
addressed this issue answered in the
affirmative. 159 Unlike most employees,
unions routinely deal with issues
arising under the NLRA and are
therefore more familiar with the Act’s
provisions. Accordingly, the tolling
provisions in the final rule apply only
to charges filed by employees, not those
filed by unions. (The Board still could
toll the 10(b) period if a charging party
union did not discover the facts
underlying the charge within six
months, if the employees reporting
those events failed to alert the union
within that time because they were
excusably unaware of their NLRA
rights.)
Several comments contend that
failure to post the required notice
should not toll the 10(b) period if an
employee who files an unfair labor
practice charge is either a union
member or is represented by a union.
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP asserts
that the burden should be placed
equally on unions to ensure that their
organizers and members are aware of
employee rights under the NLRA.
California Chamber and NCAE observe
that knowledge of a filing time limit is
generally imputed to an individual who
is represented by an attorney, see, e.g.,
Mercado v. Ritz-Carlton San Juan Hotel,
above, 410 F.3d at 47–48; they urge that
an employee who is represented by a
union should be treated similarly.
Conversely, three Georgetown
University law students oppose the idea
that union-represented employees
should be deemed to have constructive
knowledge of NLRA rights. They reason
that some workplaces may have
unrepresented as well as represented
employees, and that imputing
knowledge to the latter group would
provide an incentive not to post the
notice, thus depriving the former group
of needed information. The students
159 See, e.g., comments of U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, American Trucking Associations, Taft
Stettinius & Hollister LLP.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
also suggest that some employees,
though represented, may have little
contact with their unions and rely on
workplace notices instead of unions for
relevant information.
The Board finds some merit in both
sets of contentions. On the one hand, it
is reasonable to assume that employees
who are represented by unions are more
likely to be aware of their NLRA rights
than unrepresented employees. And,
although being represented by a union
is not the same as being represented by
legal counsel, it is reasonable to assume
that union officials are sufficiently
conversant with the NLRA to be able to
give employees effective advice as to
their NLRA rights. On the other hand,
some employees, though represented by
unions, may in fact have little contact
with their bargaining representatives for
one reason or other and may, in fact, be
filing charges against their
representative. Thus, the Board does not
find it appropriate under all
circumstances to impute knowledge of
NLRA rights to charge-filing employees
who are union members or are
represented by unions. Rather, the
Board will consider evidence
concerning the union’s representational
presence and activity in determining
whether it is appropriate to toll the
10(b) period.
C. Failure To Post as Evidence of
Unlawful Motive
The Board suggested that it could
consider an employer’s knowing failure
to post the notice as evidence of
unlawful motive in an unfair labor
practice proceeding in which motive is
an issue. 75 FR 80414–80415. A number
of comments assert that the Board
cannot properly take that step. 160 To the
contrary, the Board has often considered
other unlawful conduct as evidence of
antiunion animus in cases in which
unlawful motive was an element of an
unfair labor practice. 161 See, e.g., Leiser
Construction, LLC, 349 NLRB 413, 417–
419 (2007) (threats, coercive statements,
interrogations evidence of unlawfully
motivated failure to hire), enfd. 281 Fed.
Appx. 781 (10th Cir. 2008)
(unpublished); Shearer’s Foods, 340
NLRB 1093, 1094 (2003) (plant closing
threat evidence of unlawfully motivated
discharge); Ferguson-Williams, Inc., 322
NLRB 695, 703, 707 (1996) (threats,
interrogations, creation of impression of
surveillance, evidence of unlawfully
motivated discharge); Champion Rivet
Co., 314 NLRB 1097, 1098 (1994)
(circulating unlawful antiunion petition,
160 See, e.g., comments of COLLE and California
Chamber.
161 See comment of AFL–CIO.
54036 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
refusal to recognize and bargain with
union, evidence of unlawfully
motivated failure to hire). Thus, it is
proper for the Board to consider a
knowing and willful failure to post the
notice as evidence of unlawful motive.
However, the Board has noticed that
it employed somewhat inconsistent
language in the NPRM regarding the
consideration of failure to post the
notice as evidence of antiunion animus.
Thus, the caption of paragraph
104.214(b) reads: ‘‘Knowing
noncompliance as evidence of unlawful
motive.’’ However, the paragraph itself
states that ‘‘If an employer has actual or
constructive knowledge of the
requirement to post the notice and fails
or refuses to do so, the Board may
consider such a willful refusal as
evidence of unlawful motive in a case
in which motive is an issue.’’ (Emphasis
added in both cases.) 75 FR at 80420. In
the preamble to the NPRM, the Board
referred only to knowing noncompliance
as evidence of unlawful motive. 75 FR
at 80414–80415. On reflection, the
Board wishes to clarify this provision to
state that, to be considered as evidence
of unlawful motive, an employer’s
failure to post the notice must be both
knowing and willful—i.e., the employer
must have actual (as opposed to
constructive) knowledge of the rule and
yet refuse, on no cognizable basis, to
post the notice. The Board is revising
the language of the rule accordingly.
The comment that prompted these
revisions urges that there should be no
adverse consequences for the employer
that does not post the notice because it
has a good-faith (but, implicitly,
erroneous) belief that it is not covered
by the NLRA. 162 The Board rejects this
contention as it pertains to finding the
failure to post to be an unfair labor
practice or grounds for tolling the 10(b)
period. Failure to post the notice
interferes with employees’ NLRA rights
regardless of the reason for the failure;
good faith, though commendable, is
irrelevant. 163 Additionally, tolling is
162 One example could be an employer that
believes that it is subject to the Railway Labor Act
and not to the NLRA.
163 This is so in other areas of NLRA law. For
example, an employer who coercively interrogates
or disciplines an individual concerning his or her
union activities violates the NLRA if the individual
is a statutory employee, even though the employer
may have honestly believed that the individual was
a statutory supervisor and not protected by the
NLRA. Also, absent compelling economic
circumstances, an employer that is testing the
Board’s certification of a newly-selected union in
the court of appeals makes unilateral changes in
unit employees’ terms and conditions of
employment at its peril; if the court affirms the
certification, the unilateral changes violate NLRA
Section 8(a)(5) even if the employer believed in
good faith that the certification was inappropriate.
concerned with fairness to the
employee, and these fairness concerns
are unaffected by the employer’s good or
bad faith; as previously noted, notice
posting tolling is fundamentally
different from tolling based upon
employer misconduct. However, an
employer that fails to post the notice
only because it honestly but erroneously
believes that it is not subject to the
NLRB’s jurisdiction does not thereby
indicate that it is hostile to employees’
NLRA rights, but only that it believes
that those rights do not apply in the
employer’s workplace. In such a case,
the employer’s good faith normally
should preclude finding the failure to
post to be willful or evidence of
antiunion animus.
ACC contends that even though the
rule states that only a ‘‘willful’’ failure
to post the notice may be considered
evidence of unlawful motive, in practice
the Board will always infer at least
constructive notice from the publication
of the rule in the Federal Register and
the maxim that ‘‘ignorance of the law is
no excuse.’’ 164 The Board rejects this
contention. The quoted maxim means
only that an employer’s actual lack of
knowledge of the rule would not excuse
its failure to post the notice. It would,
however, undercut any suggestion that
the failure to post was willful and
therefore indicative of unlawful motive.
Contrary to numerous comments, 165
finding a willful failure to post the
notice as evidence of animus is not the
same as adopting a ‘‘presumption of
animus’’ or ‘‘presumption of unlawful
motive.’’ There is no such presumption.
The Board’s general counsel would have
the burden of proving that a failure to
post was willful. In any event, a willful
failure to post would not be conclusive
proof of unlawful motive, but merely
evidence that could be considered,
along with other evidence, in
determining whether the general
counsel had demonstrated unlawful
motive. 166 Likewise, contrary to the
contentions of ALFA and AHCA, the
Board will not assume that any failure
Mike O’Connor Chevrolet, 209 NLRB 701, 703
(1974), enf. denied on other grounds 512 F.2d 684
(8th Cir. 1975).
164 See also comment of American Health Care
Association (AHCA).
165 See, e.g., comments of FMI and COLLE.
166 The Georgetown law students ask whether, if
failure to post the notice may be found to be an
unfair labor practice and also may be considered
evidence of antiunion animus, such a failure could
‘‘satisfy an element of its own violation.’’ The
answer is no, because the failure to post, whether
knowing or inadvertent, would be an unfair labor
practice regardless of motive; knowing and willful
failure to post would be relevant only in cases such
as those alleging unlawful discipline, discharge, or
refusal to hire, in which motive is an element of the
violation.
to post the notice is intentional and
meant to prevent employees of learning
their rights.
D. Other Comments
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
The Board received many comments
asserting that if the proposed
enforcement scheme for failure to post
the required notice is adopted, union
adherents will tear down the notices in
order to harass employers and,
particularly, to vitiate 10(b). 167 These
comments express the concern that
tolling the 10(b) period will lead to a
flood of unfair labor practice charges,
and that, to avoid that eventuality,
employers will have to incur significant
costs of policing the postings and/or
installing expensive tamper-proof
bulletin boards. 168 In the absence of
experience with such postings, the
Board deems these concerns speculative
at this time. If particular employers
experience such difficulties, the Board
will deal with them on a case-by-case
basis. However, as explained above,
tolling is an equitable matter, and if an
employer has posted the notice and
taken reasonable steps to insure that it
remains posted, it is unlikely that the
Board would find tolling appropriate.
California Chamber and NCAE ask the
Board to specify the ‘‘additional
remedies’’ that may be imposed in the
event of a notice posting violation.
104.213(a). The Board has broad
discretion in crafting remedies for
violations of the NLRA. NLRB v. Seven-
Up Bottling Co. of Miami, 344 U.S. 344,
346 (1953). The remedies imposed in a
given case depend on the nature of the
violations and the particular facts in the
case. The Board declines to speculate as
to every possible remedy that might be
imposed in every imaginable set of
circumstances.
Several comments protest that
employers could be fined for failing to
post the notice; several others contend
that the Board should levy fines instead
of imposing the proposed remedies. The
167 See, e.g., comments of Lemon Grove Care &
Rehabilitation, numerous ‘‘postcard’’ comments.
168 One comment asserts that because of the
potential for tolling the 10(b) period, ‘‘businesses
* * * will have to keep records forever[.]’’ The
Board finds no merit in this contention. Employers
that are aware of the rule can avoid keeping records
‘‘forever’’ simply by posting the notice. Employers
that are not aware of the requirement to post the
notice would also be unaware of the possibility of
tolling the 10(b) period in the event of a failure to
post, and thus would discern no reason to—and
probably would not—keep records ‘‘forever.’’
Prejudice to the employer because of long-lost
records would be considered by the Board in
determining whether tolling is appropriate in the
particular case.
Another comment complains that ‘‘the
requirement of proof on the employer to ‘certify’
that this posting is up each day is burdensome[.]’’
There is no such requirement.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54037
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Board rejects both contentions because,
as explained in the NPRM, the Board
does not have the authority to impose
fines. 75 FR 80414, citing Republic Steel
Corp. v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 7, 10–12 (1940).
Another comment argues that the Board
should not provide remedies for failing
to post the notice because such
remedies are not provided under other
statutes. In fact, both remedies and
sanctions are imposed under some
statutes; see, e.g., 29 CFR 1601.30 (fine
of $110 per offense for failing to post
notice under Title VII); 29 CFR
825.300(a)(1) (same sanction for failing
to post notice under FMLA); cases cited
above for tolling of limitation periods
for failing to post notices under several
statutes.
One comment contends that the
proposed remedies were proposed
solely as means of deterring failures to
post the notices, and are therefore
inappropriate; several other comments
assert that the proposed remedies are
punitive. 169 Although the Board
disagrees, there is language in the
NPRM that may have inadvertently
suggested that the enforcement
mechanisms were proposed solely for
deterrent purposes. The Board wishes to
correct any such misimpression. As
stated above, in explaining why it was
proposing those mechanisms, the Board
stated in its NPRM that it was ‘‘mindful
of the need to identify effective
incentives for compliance.’’ 75 FR
80413. Later, referring to tolling the
10(b) period and considering a willful
failure to post the notice as evidence of
unlawful motive, the Board said that it
‘‘proposes the following options
intended to induce compliance with the
notice-posting requirement.’’ Id. at
80414. However, the Board made those
statements while explaining why it had
determined not to rely entirely on
employers’ voluntary compliance with
the rule. (The Board had had little
success in persuading employers to
voluntarily post notices of employee
rights during the critical period leading
up to a representation election.) Id. By
noting that the proposed enforcement
scheme would have some deterrent
effect in that context, the Board did not
mean to imply that it was proposing
those measures solely for deterrence
purposes. For the reasons discussed at
length above, the Board has found that
finding a failure to post the notices to
violate Section 8(a)(1) and, in
appropriate circumstances, to warrant
tolling the 10(b) period and/or inferring
unlawful motive in an unfair labor
practice case are legitimate remedial
169 See, e.g., comments of FMI, ALFA, AHCA.
measures supported by extensive Board
and court precedent.
In addition, in a number of places the
NPRM used the term ‘‘sanctions’’ in a
very loose sense to refer to aspects of the
proposed enforcement scheme,
inadvertently suggesting that this
scheme was punitive. The term
‘‘sanctions’’ was an inapt choice of
descriptor for the enforcement scheme:
the classic 8(a)(1) remedial order has
long been upheld as nonpunitive;
equitable tolling is concerned with
fairness to employees, not punishment
of misconduct, and is fully consistent
with current Board doctrine; and the
animus provision is little more than the
common-sense extension of wellestablished
evidentiary principles that
apply to many other NLRA violations,
and is also not designed to punish
employers. That they may also furnish
incentives for employers to comply with
the notice-posting rule does not detract
from their legitimacy; if it were
otherwise, the Board could never
impose any remedy for violations of the
NLRA if the remedy had a deterrent
effect. In any event, the Board hereby
disavows any suggestion from
statements in the NPRM that the
remedial measures were proposed solely
as penalties.
Contrary to the tenor of numerous
comments opposing this rule, 170 the
Board is not issuing the rule in order to
entrap unwary employers and make
operations more difficult for them
because of inadvertent or technical
violations. It is doing so in order that
employees may come to understand
their NLRA rights through exposure to
notices posted in their workplaces
explaining those rights. Accordingly,
the important thing is that the notices be
posted. As explained above, an
employer that fails to post the notice
because it is unaware of the rule, but
promptly posts the notice when the rule
is brought to its attention, will nearly
always avoid any further proceedings.
Similarly, an employer that posts the
notice but fails initially to comply with
one of the technical posting
requirements will almost always avoid
further problems by correcting the error
when it is called to the employer’s
attention. And if an employer is unsure
of what the rule requires in a particular
setting, it can seek and receive guidance
from the Board.
The Service Employees International
Union and the United Food and
Commercial Workers propose that, in
170 For example, ‘‘This seems to be yet another
trap for the employers. Another avenue to subject
them to law suits and interrogations, and
uneconomic activities and ungodly expenditures.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
addition to the proposed enforcement
scheme, the rule state that an
employer’s knowing failure to post the
notice of employee rights during the
critical period before a representation
election shall be grounds for setting the
election aside on the filing of proper
objections. The Board finds that this is
unnecessary, because the Board’s notice
of election, which must be posted by an
employer three working days before an
election takes place, contains a
summary of employee NLRA rights and
a list of several kinds of unfair labor
practices, and failure to post that notice
already constitutes grounds for setting
an election aside. 171 In any event,
during a union organizing campaign, the
union can instruct members of its inplant
organizing committee to verify
whether the notice required under this
rule has been posted; if it has not, the
union can so inform the employer and,
if need be, the Board’s regional office.
Subpart C—Ancillary Matters
Several technical issues unrelated to
those discussed in the two previous
subparts are set out in this subpart.
IV. Dissenting View of Member Brian E.
Hayes
‘‘Agencies may play the sorcerer’s
apprentice but not the sorcerer
himself.’’ 172
Today, my colleagues conjure up a
new unfair labor practice based on a
new statutory obligation. They impose
on as many as six million private
employers the obligation to post a notice
of employee rights and selected
illustrative unfair labor practices. The
obligation to post is deemed enforceable
through Section 8(a)(1)’s proscription of
interference with employees’ Section 7
rights, and the failure to post is further
penalized by equitable tolling of Section
10(b)’s limitations period and the
possible inference of discriminatory
motivation for adverse employment
actions taken in the absence of posting.
While the need for a more informed
constituency might be a desirable goal,
it is attainable only with Congressional
imprimatur. The Board’s rulemaking
authority, broad as it is, does not
encompass the authority to promulgate
a rule of this kind. Even if it did, the
action taken here is arbitrary and
capricious, and therefore invalid,
because it is not based on substantial
evidence and it lacks a reasoned
analysis.
171 See Section 103.20 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations.
172 Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 291
(2001).
54038 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
No Statutory Authority for the Proposed
Rule
The majority concedes that the
‘‘National Labor Relations Act does not
directly address an employer’s
obligation to post a notice of its
employees’ rights arising under the Act
or the consequences an employer may
face for failing to do so.’’ In fact, the
NLRA 173 makes no mention of any such
putative obligation. The majority further
acknowledges that the NLRA ‘‘is almost
unique among major Federal labor laws
in not including an express statutory
provision requiring employers routinely
to post notices at their workplaces
informing employees of their statutory
rights.’’ Despite the obvious import of
these admissions, the majority
concludes that the Board’s plenary
authority under Section 6 of the Act to
make rules ‘‘necessary to carry out the
provisions of the Act’’ permits
promulgation of the rule they advocate.
I disagree.
Congress did not give specific
statutory authority to the Board to
require the posting of a general rights
notice when it passed the Wagner Act
in 1935. Just one year earlier, however,
Congress amended the Railway Labor
Act (‘‘RLA’’) to include an express
notice-posting requirement. 45 U.S.C.
152 Eighth; Pub. L. No. 73–442, 48 Stat.
1185, 1188 (1934). As the Supreme
Court noted, the RLA served as the
model for the National Labor Relations
Act. NLRB v. Pennsylvania Greyhound
Lines, 303 U.S. 261 (1938). See also
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.,
301 U.S. 1, 44 (1937); H. J. Heinz Co. v.
NLRB, 311 U.S. 514, 524–525(1941).
That Congress did not include an
express notice-posting requirement
when passing the Wagner Act the
following year strongly implies, if not
compels, the conclusion that Congress
did not intend for the Board to have
regulatory authority to require such a
notice. Nothing in the legislative history
hints of any concern by Congress about
the need for employers to notify
employees generally of their rights
under the new enacting statute. Since
1935, despite extensive revisions in the
Taft-Hartley Act amendments of 1947
and the Landrum-Griffin Act
amendments of 1959, Congress has
never added such authority.
On the other hand, when Congress
has subsequently desired to include a
general rights notice-posting
requirement, it has done so expressly in
other federal labor and employment
173 Throughout this dissent, I will refer generally
to the statute we administer as the NLRA, unless
the discussion focuses on a specific historical
version, such as the Wagner Act.
laws. See Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C.
2000e–10, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 627,
The Occupational Safety and Health
Act, 29 U.S.C. 657(c), the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
12115, the Family and Medical Leave
Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2619(a), and the
Uniformed Service Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA),
38 U.S.C. 4334(a).
The majority points out that the
Department of Labor (DOL) promulgated
a notice-posting rule under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), although
that statute does not contain a specific
statutory provision on workplace
postings. However, the FLSA, unlike the
NLRA, imposes a data-collection and
recordkeeping requirement on
employers. 29 U.S.C. 211(c). DOL’s
Wage and Hour Administrator
promulgated the notice-posting
regulation in 1949 in reliance on this
requirement. It appears that the
propriety of the FLSA rule has never
been challenged, perhaps because,
unlike the rule promulgated herein,
there are no citations or penalties
assessed for the failure to post. This is
a significant point of distinction that
warrants further discussion.
It must be constantly borne in mind
that the rule promulgated today makes
the failure to post the required notice a
violation of the Act. The majority
misleadingly seeks to decouple
obligation from violation in its analysis
by discussing the latter in the context of
enforcement of the assertedly lawful
notice-posting rule. That is nonsense.
Making noncompliance an unfair labor
practice is integral to the rule and,
consequently, integral to an analysis of
whether the notice-posting requirement
is a permissible exercise of the Board’s
rulemaking authority. Of the
aforementioned agencies that have
notice-posting requirements, none of
them makes the failure to post unlawful,
absent additional specific statutory
authorization. Only the RLA, Title VII,
FMLA, and the Occupational Safety Act
(OSHA) have such authorizing language.
ADA, the ADEA, the FLSA, and the
USERRA do not. Consequently, an
employer’s failure to post a notice under
those statutes is not subject to sanction
as unlawful.
Thus, both before and after the
Wagner Act, Congress has consistently
manifested by express statutory
language its intent to impose a general
notice-posting duty on employers with
respect to the rights of employees under
various federal labor laws. Only one
administrative agency promulgated a
notice-posting requirement in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
absence of such language in its enabling
statute. No agency has made the failure
to comply with a notice-posting
requirement unlawful absent express
statutory authorization, until today.
The explicit inclusion of noticeposting
provisions and permissible
sanctions by Congress in other labor
legislation undercuts the majority’s
claim that this notice-posting rule is not
a ‘‘major policy decision properly made
by Congress alone.’’ Strangely, the
majority does not merely contend that
this pattern in comparable labor
legislation fails to prove that Congress
did not intend that the Board should
have the rulemaking authority under
Section 6 to mandate the notice posting
at issue here. They conversely contend
that it proves Congress must have
intended to confer such authority on the
Board! 174
Perhaps cognizant of the weakness of
this position, the majority attempts to
downplay the import of Congressional
silence on the Board’s authority to
mandate notice posting and to enforce
that mandate through unfair labor
practice sanctions. They cite Cheney
R.R. Co. v. ICC, 902 F. 2d 66, 68–69
(D.C. Cir. 1990), for the proposition that
the maxim ‘‘expressio unius est exclusio
alterius,’’ which holds that the special
mention of one thing indicates an intent
for another thing not be included
elsewhere, may not always be a useful
tool for interpreting the intent of
Congress. Obviously, the usefulness of
this tool depends on the context of a
particular statute. Independent Ins.
Agents of Am., Inc. v. Hawke, 211 F.3d
638 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (applying the
maxim). In my view, the absence of an
express notice provision in the NLRA,
and the failure to amend the Act to
include one when Congress expressly
included notice posting provisions in
other labor statutes, shows that it did
not intend to authorize the Board to
promulgate this rule. 175
Arguing to the contrary, the majority
asserts that the notice-posting rule is
174 Of course, this reasoning would seem to
dictate that the failure of the Board to inform its
own employees of their general rights under the
Federal Labor Relations Act is an unfair labor
practice, even though that statute imposes no such
express requirement. To date, I am not aware that
this agency, or any other, views itself as subject to
such an enforceable obligation.
175 The majority contends that the fact that the
rule comes 76 years after the NLRA was enacted is
not a ‘‘condition of validity.’’ Mayo Foundation for
Medical Education and Research v. United States,
131 S.Ct. 704, 713–14 (2011) (quoting Smiley v.
Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 740 (1996)
(‘‘neither antiquity nor contemporaneity with the
statute is a condition of validity.’’). I have no
problem with that proposition, but if the Board
lacks statutory authority to promulgate a rule, it is
of no matter that it attempts to do so in year 1 or
year 76 of its existence.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54039
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
entitled to deference under the analysis
set forth in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under
Chevron, where Congress has not
‘‘directly addressed the precise question
at issue,’’ id. at 842–843, that
rulemaking authority may be used in
order ‘‘to fill any gap left, implicitly or
explicitly, by Congress.’’ Id. at 843.
Even assuming that the absence of an
explicit posting requirement in the
NLRA is not interpreted as clear
expression of Congressional intent, the
majority fails to persuade that Congress
delegated authority in Section 6 of the
NLRA for the Board to fill a putative
statutory gap by promulgating a rule
that an employer commits an unfair
labor practice by failing to affirmative
notify its employees of their rights
under the NLRA. As the Supreme Court
has explained, ‘‘the ultimate question is
whether Congress would have intended,
and expected, courts to treat [the
regulation] as within, or outside, its
delegation to the agency of ‘gap-filling’
authority.’’ Long Island Care at Home,
Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 173 (2007).
There is no doubt that there are many
gaps and ambiguities in the NLRA that
Congress intended for the Board to
address, using its labor expertise, either
through adjudication or rulemaking.
However, the existence of ambiguity in
a statute is not enough per se to warrant
deference to the agency’s interpretation
of its authority in every respect. The
ambiguity must be such as to make it
appear that Congress either explicitly or
implicitly delegated authority to cure
that ambiguity. Am. Bar Ass’n v. FTC,
430 F.3d 457, 469 (D.C. Cir. 2005);
Motion Picture Ass’n of America, Inc. v.
FCC, 309 F. 3d 796, 801 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
(‘‘MPAA ’’) (‘‘agency’s interpretation of
[a] statute is not entitled to deference
absent a delegation of authority from
Congress to regulate in the areas at
issue.’’).
Thus, even when an administrative
agency seeks to address what it believes
is a serious interpretive problem, the
Supreme Court has said that the agency
‘‘may not exercise its authority ‘in a
manner that is inconsistent with the
administrative structure that Congress
enacted into law.’ ’’ FDA v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S.
120, 125(2000) (quoting ETSI Pipeline
Project v. Missouri, 484 U.S. 495,
517(1988)). Further, the statute at issue
must be considered as a ‘‘symmetrical
and coherent regulatory scheme.’’
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561,
569, 115 S.Ct. 1061, 131 L.Ed.2d 1
(1995). In our case, the exercise of
rulemaking authority under Section 6 is
not self-effectuating; it must be shown
to relate reasonably to some other
provision as part of the overall statutory
scheme contemplated by Congress. 176
Nothing in the text or the regulatory
structure of the NLRA suggests that the
Board has the authority to promulgate
the notice-posting rule at issue in order
to address a gap in the statutory scheme
for resolving questions concerning
representation through Section 9, or in
preventing, through Sections 8 and 10,
specifically enumerated unfair labor
practices that adversely affect
employees’ Section 7 rights. On the
contrary, it is well-established that the
Board lacks independent authority to
initiate or to solicit the initiation of
representation and unfair labor practice
proceedings, and Section 10(a) limits
the Board’s powers to preventing only
the unfair labor practices listed in
Section 8 of the Act. Yet the majority
asserts that it may exceed these
limitations by requiring employers to
post a notice of employee rights and
illustrative unfair labor practices at all
times, regardless of whether a petition
had been filed or an employer has been
found to have committed an unfair labor
practice.
The majority’s reliance on a
combination of Section 7, 8, and 10
warrants special mention. They reason
that an employer interferes with Section
7 rights in general, and thereby violates
Section 8(a)(1), by failing to give
continuous notice to employees of those
rights. It may be a truism that an
employee must be aware of his rights in
order to exercise them, but it does not
follow that it is the employer under our
statutory scheme who must provide
enlightenment or else incur liability for
violating those rights. The new unfair
labor practice created by the rule bears
no reasonable relation to any unfair
labor practice in the NLRA’s preexisting
enforcement scheme developed
over seven decades. 177 It certainly bears
176 See, e.g., Mourning v. Family Publications
Service, Inc., 411 U.S. 356, (1973) Unlike here, the
Federal Reserve Board easily met this standard in
Mourning when issuing a disclosure regulation
under the Truth in Lending Act, even though that
Act did not explicitly require lenders to make such
disclosures. In sustaining the regulation, the Court
found the regulation to be within the Federal
Reserve’s rulemaking authority and, in light of the
legislative history, the disclosure requirement was
not contrary to the statute. ‘‘The crucial distinction,
* * * [was that] the disclosure requirement was in
fact enforced through the statute’s pre-existing
remedial scheme and in a manner consistent with
it.’’ Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535
U.S. 81, 94 (2002).
177 The Senate report on the Wagner bill stressed
that unfair labor practices were ‘‘strictly limited to
those enumerated in section 8. This is made clear
by paragraph 8 of section 2, which provides that
‘The term ‘unfair labor practice’ means unfair labor
practice listed in Section 8,’’ and by Section 10(a)
empowering the Board to prevent any unfair labor
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
no relation to the few examples the
majority can muster in Board precedent.
The only instance with even a passing
resemblance to the rights notice-posting
requirement here is the requirement that
a union give notice of Beck 178 and
General Motors 179 rights. However, the
failure to give such a notice is not per
se unlawful. It becomes an unfair labor
practice only when a union, without
giving notice, takes the affirmative
action of seeking to obligate an
employee to pay fees and dues under a
union-security clause. 180 Beyond that, a
union has no general obligation to give
employees notice of their Beck and
General Motors rights; much less does it
violate the NLRA by failing to do so. By
contrast, the rule promulgated today
imposes a continuing obligation on
employers to post notice of employees’
general rights and, even absent any
affirmative act involving those rights,
makes the failure to maintain such
notice unlawful. 181
Unlike my colleagues, I find that the
Supreme Court’s opinion in Local 357,
Teamsters v. NLRB, 365 U.S. 667 (1961),
speaks directly to this point. In that
case, the Board found a hiring hall
agreement unlawfully discriminatory
per se because, even though it included
an express anti-discrimination
practice ‘‘listed in Section 8.’’ Thus, ‘‘[n]either the
National Labor Relations Board nor the courts are
given any blanket authority to prohibit whatever
labor practices that in their judgment are deemed
to be unfair.’’ S. Rep. No. 573, 74th Cong., 1st Sess.
17 (1935) at 8–9 reprinted in Legislative History of
the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, Vol. II at
2307–2308 (1985).
178 Communications Workers v. Beck, 487 U.S.
735 (1988).
179 NLRB v. General Motors, 373 U.S. 734 (1963).
180 California Saw & Knife Works, 320 NLRB 224,
233 (1995).
181 None of the FMLA cases cited by the majority
support finding that a failure to post a general
notice of employee rights under the NLRA is
unlawful. In Bachelder, the Ninth Circuit actually
found ‘‘unavailing’’ the employer’s argument that it
had satisfied all its specific FMLA notice
obligations because it had complied with the
FMLA’s general posting rule. Id. at 1127, fn. 5.
Rather, the court found that because the employer
failed to ‘‘notify’’ an employee which of the four
FMLA’s ‘‘leave year’’ calculation methods it had
chosen, the employer ‘‘interfered’’ with that
employee’s rights and, therefore, improperly used
the employee’s FMLA covered absences as a
‘‘negative factor’’ when taking the affirmative
adverse action of discharging her.
Similarly, in neither Greenwell v. Charles
Machine Works, Inc., 2011 WL 1458565 (W.D.Okla.,
2011); Smith v. Westchester County, 769 F. Supp 2d
448 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), was the FMLA general posting
requirement at issue. Smith did not involve a notice
issue and Greenwell involved the employer’s failure
to comply with a different notification obligation
under the FMLA.
In any event, as previously stated, FMLA
expressly provides that employers give notice to
employees of rights thereunder and expressly
provides for sanctions if notice is not given. The
NLRA does neither.
54040 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
provision, it did not include two
additional provisions that the Board
declared were necessary to prevent
‘‘unlawful encouragement of union
membership.’’ The Court disagreed,
stating
Perhaps the conditions which the Board
attaches to hiring-hall arrangements will in
time appeal to the Congress. Yet, where
Congress has adopted a selective system for
dealing with evils, the Board is confined to
that system. National Labor Relations Board
v. Drivers, etc. Local Union, 362 U.S. 274,
284–290, 80 S.Ct. 706, 712–715, 4 L.Ed.2d
710. Where, as here, Congress has aimed its
sanctions only at specific discriminatory
practices, the Board cannot go farther and
establish a broader, more pervasive
regulatory scheme. 182
Congress in Section 8(a)(1) aimed its
sanctions only at employer actions that
interfere with the exercise of Section 7
rights. By this rulemaking, my
colleagues go farther and establish a
broader, more pervasive regulatory
scheme that targets employer inaction,
or silence, as unlawful interference. As
Local 357 instructs, they lack the
authority to do this. 183
American Hospital Association v.
NLRB, 499 U.S. 606 (1991) (AHA), upon
which the majority heavily relies,
illustrates a valid exercise of authority
under Section 6. In AHA, the Supreme
Court unanimously upheld the Board’s
health care unit rule, finding that
Section 6’s general grant of rulemaking
authority ‘‘was unquestionably
sufficient to authorize the rule at issue
in this case unless limited by some
other provision in the Act.’’ Id. at 609–
10 (emphasis added). The Court further
found that the rule was clearly
consistent with authority under Section
9(b) to make appropriate bargaining unit
determinations. It specifically rejected
the argument that language in 9(b)
directing the Board to decide the
appropriate bargaining unit ‘‘in each
case’’ limited its authority to define
appropriate units by rulemaking.
Congress expressly authorized the
Board in Section 9(b) to determine
appropriate bargaining units and the
Board exercised its rulemaking
authority to promulgate a rule
‘‘necessary to carry out’’ Section 9(b). In
contrast, as previously stated, there is
no reasonable basis for finding that a
rule making it unlawful for employers to
fail to post and maintain a notice of
employee rights and selected illustrative
182 365 U.S. at 676.
183 My colleagues attempt to distinguish Local
357 as limited to an interpretation of Sec. 8(a)(3)
and 8(b)(2)’s prohibition of discriminatory
practices. That may have been the issue before the
Court, but I do not view the quoted rationale as so
limited.
unfair labor practices is necessary to
carry out any substantive section of the
NLRA. Nevertheless, the majority
construes AHA as an endorsement of
deference to the exercise of Section 6
rulemaking authority whenever
Congress did not expressly limit this
authority. This is patently incorrect. ‘‘To
suggest, as the [majority] effectively
does, that Chevron deference is required
any time a statute does not expressly
negate the existence of a claimed
administrative power * * *, is both
flatly unfaithful to the principles of
administrative law * * * and refuted by
precedent.’’ Railway Labor Executives’
Ass’n v. National Mediation Bd., 29
F.3d 655, 671 (D.C.Cir.1994) (citation
omitted). Were courts ‘‘to presume a
delegation of power absent an express
withholding of such power, agencies
would enjoy virtually limitless
hegemony, a result plainly out of
keeping with Chevron and quite likely
with the Constitution as well.’’ Id.
In sum, the majority’s notice rule does
not address a gap that Congress
delegated authority to the Board to fill,
whether by rulemaking or adjudication.
The Supreme Court has made clear that
‘‘[w]here Congress has in the statute
given the Board a question to answer,
the courts will give respect to that
answer; but they must be sure the
question has been asked.’’ NLRB v.
Insurance Agents’ Int’l Union, 361 U.S.
419, 432–433 (1960). The Supreme
Court also has made clear: ‘‘[Congress]
does not * * * hide elephants in
mouseholes.’’ Whitman v. American
Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457,
468 (2001).
My colleagues’ action here is
markedly like the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) regulation rejected as
ultra vires by the court of appeals in
Am. Bar Ass’n v. FTC, supra. The FTC
issued a ruling that attorneys engaged in
certain practices were financial
institutions subject to the privacy
provision of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act (GBLA). Upon review of the
detailed statutory scheme at issue, the
court found it ‘‘difficult to believe that
Congress, by any remaining ambiguity,
intended to undertake the regulation [of
a subject] * * * and never mentioned
[it] in the statute.’’ 430 F.3d at 469. The
court further opined that to find the
FTC’s interpretation to be ‘‘deferenceworthy,
we would have to conclude that
Congress not only had hidden a rather
large elephant in a rather obscure
mousehole, but had buried the
ambiguity in which the pachyderm
lurks beneath an incredibly deep mound
of specificity, none of which bears the
footprints of the beast or any indication
that Congress even suspected its
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
presence.’’ Id. No such conclusion was
possible in that case. No such
conclusion is possible here. Quite
simply, the Board lacks statutory
authority to promulgate a rule that
imposes a new obligation on employers
and creates a new unfair labor practice
to enforce it.
The Rule Is Arbitrary and Capricious
Even if the Board arguably has
rulemaking authority in this area,
deference is unwarranted under
Chevron and the Administrative
Procedure Act if the rule promulgated is
‘‘arbitrary or capricious in substance, or
manifestly contrary to the statute.’’
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S.
218, 227 (2001). Also see AHA, 499 U.S.
at 618–20 (applying arbitrary and
capricious standard in its consideration
of the Board’s rule on acute care
hospital bargaining units). ‘‘Normally,
an agency rule would be arbitrary and
capricious if the agency has relied on
factors which Congress has not intended
it to consider, entirely failed to consider
an important aspect of the problem,
offered an explanation for its decision
that runs counter to the evidence before
the agency, or is so implausible that it
could not be ascribed to a difference in
view or the product of agency
expertise.’’ Motor Vehicle Mfg. Ass’n of
the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). ‘‘[T]he
agency must examine the relevant data
and articulate a satisfactory explanation
for its action including a ‘rational
connection between the facts found and
the choice made.’ ’’ Id. (quoting
Burlington Truck Lines v. United States,
371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). See also
Business Roundtable et al. v. S.E.C.,—
F.3d—, 2011 WL 2936808 (D.C. Cir.,
July 22, 2011) (finding SEC acted
arbitrarily and capriciously by relying
on insufficient empirical data
supporting its rule and by completely
discounting contrary studies).
In AHA, the Board’s health care
bargaining units rule was supported by
‘‘the extensive record developed during
the rulemaking proceedings, as well as
its experience in the adjudication of
health care cases during the 13-year
period between the enactment of the
health care amendments and its notice
of proposed rulemaking.’’ AHA, 499
U.S. at 618. The Supreme Court upheld
the validity of the rule finding it ‘‘based
on substantial evidence and supported
by a ‘‘reasoned analysis.’’ Id. at 619
(citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass., 463
U.S. at 57).
By contrast, the majority’s articulation
of the need to mandate that employers
violate Section 8(a)(1) unless they post
a notice of employee rights is not based
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54041
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
on substantial evidence, nor does it
provide a satisfactory explanation for
the choice they have made. They
contend that a mandatory notice posting
rule enforceable through Section 8(a)(1)
is needed because they believe that most
employees are unaware of their NLRA
rights and therefore cannot effectively
exercise those rights. This belief is
based on: (1) Some studies indicating
that employees and high school
students about to enter the work force
are generally uninformed about labor
law; (2) an influx of immigrants in the
labor force who are presumably also
uninformed about labor law; (3) the
current low and declining percentage of
union-represented employees in the
private sector, which presumably means
that unions are less likely to be a source
of information about employee rights;
and (4) the absence of any general legal
requirement that employers or anyone
else inform employees about their
NLRA rights. 75 FR 80411.
Neither the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking nor today’s notice
summarizing comments in response to
that notice come anywhere close to
providing a substantial factual basis
supporting the belief that most
employees are unaware of their NLRA
rights. As for the lack of high school
education on this subject, we have only
a few localized studies cited in a 1995
journal article by a union attorney. 184
With respect to the assumption that
immigrants entering the work force, we
have even less, only anecdotal accounts.
For that matter, beyond the cited journal
article, almost all supposed factual
support for the premise that employees
are generally unaware of their rights
comes in comments received from
individuals, union organizers, attorneys
representing unions, and immigrant
rights and worker assistance
organizations agreeing, based on
professed personal experience, that
most employees (obviously not
including most of the employee
commenters) are unfamiliar with their
NLRA rights. There are, as well,
anecdotal accounts and comments from
employers, employer associations and
184 Peter D. DeChiara, ‘‘The Right to Know: An
Argument for Informing Employees of Their Rights
under the National Labor Relations Act,’’ 32 Harv.
J. on Legis. 431, at 436 and fn. 28 (1995).
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the
majority also relied on two articles by Professor
Charles J. Morris, a co-petitioner for notice-posting
rulemaking: ‘‘Renaissance at the NLRB—
Opportunity and Prospect for Non-Legislative
Procedural Reform at the Labor Board,’’ 23 Stetson
L. Rev. 101, 107 (1993); and ‘‘NLRB Protection in
the Nonunion Workplace: A Glimpse at a General
Theory of Section 7 Conduct,’’ 137 U. Pa. L. Rev.
1673, 1675–1676 (1989). Professor Morris did not
refer to any specific evidence supporting a belief
that employees lack knowledge of their rights.
management attorneys to the opposite
effect that the employees know about
their rights under the Act, but my
colleagues find these less persuasive.
In any event, the partisan opinions
and perceptions, although worthy of
consideration, ultimately fail as
substantial evidence supporting the
Board majority’s initial premise for
proposing the rule. There remains the
Board’s conclusion that the decline in
union density provides the missing
factual support. The majority explains
that there was less need for a posting of
information about NLRA rights when
the union density was higher because
‘‘friends and family who belonged to
unions’’ would be a source of
information. This is nothing more than
supposition. There is no empirical
evidence of a correlation between union
density and access to information about
employee rights, just as there are no
broad-based studies supporting the
suppositions about a lack of information
stemming from high school curricula or
the influx of immigrants in the work
force.
At bottom, the inadequacy of the
record to support my colleagues’ factual
premise is of no matter to them. In
response to comments contending that
the articles and studies they cite are old
and inadequately supported, they glibly
respond that the commenters ‘‘cite no
more recent or better supported studies
to the contrary,’’ as if opponents of the
proposed rule bear that burden. Of
course, it is the agency’s responsibility
to make factual findings that support its
decision and those findings must be
supported by substantial evidence that
must examine the relevant data and
articulate a satisfactory explanation for
its action. Burlington Truck Lines, 371
U.S. at 167.
Even more telling is the majority’s
footnote observation that there is no real
need to conduct a study of the extent of
employees’ knowledge of NLRA rights
because the notice posting rule would
be justified even if only 10 percent of
the workforce lacked such knowledge.
This statement betrays the entire factual
premise upon which the rulemaking
initiative was purportedly founded and
reveals a predisposition to issue the rule
regardless of the facts. This is patently
‘‘arbitrary and capricious.’’
Even assuming, if we must, that there
is some factual basis for a concern that
employees lack sufficient information
about their NLRA rights, the majority
also fails to provide a rational
explanation for why that concern
dictates their choice made to address
that concern. Why, for instance, was a
noncompulsory information system,
primarily reliant on personal union
communications, sufficient when the
Wagner Act was passed, but not now?
The union density levels for 1935 and
today are roughly the same. 185 Why at
a time when the Board champions its
new Web site and the Acting General
Counsel continues to encourage the
regional outreach programs initiated by
his predecessor, do my colleagues so
readily dismiss the Board’s role in
providing information about rights
under the statute we administer? For
that matter, why are the numerous
employee, labor organizer, and worker
advocacy groups whose comments
profess awareness of these rights unable
to communicate this information to
those who they know lack such
awareness? Is the problem one of access
or message? Would a reversal of the
union density trend or an increase in
petition and charge filings be the only
reliable indicators of increased
awareness?
I would think that a reasoned
explanation for the choice of a sweeping
rule making it unlawful for employers to
fail to post and maintain notice of
employee rights would at least include
some discussion of these questions and
attempt to marshal more than a
fragmented and inconclusive factual
record to support their choice. The
majority fails to do so. Their rule is
patently arbitrary and capricious.
Executive Order 13496
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
The majority mentions in passing
Executive Order 13496 186 and the DOL
implementing regulation 187 mandating
that Federal contractors post a notice to
employees of NLRA rights that is in
most respects identical to the notice at
issue here. Their consideration of this
administrative action should have led
them to the understanding that they lack
the authority to do what the President
and DOL clearly could do to advance
essentially the same policy choice.
The authority to require that
contractors agree to post an NLRA
employee rights notice as part of doing
business with the Federal government
comes both from the President’s
authority as chief executive and the
specific grant of Congressional authority
in the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C.
101 et seq. There was no need or
attempt to justify the promulgation of
the notice-posting rule by relying on
evidence that employees lacked
knowledge of their rights. Moreover, in
185 Mayer, Gerald, ‘‘Union Membership Trends in
the United States’’ (2004). Federal Publications.
Paper 174, Appendix A. http://
digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/.
186 74 FR 6107 (Feb. 4, 2009).
187 75 FR 28368 (May 20, 2011).
54042 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
the notice of a final rule, DOL rejected
commenters’ contentions that the
Executive Order and implementing
regulation were preempted by the
Board’s jurisdiction under the Garmon
doctrine. 188 Necessarily, this meant that
DOL believed that the rule requiring
federal contractors to post the employee
rights notice did not involve any rights
protected by Section 7 of the Act, such
as a right to receive such information
from their employer, or conduct
prohibited by the Act, such as the
employer’s failure to provide such
information.
Not only does my colleagues’
rulemaking action today contradict
DOL’s preemption analysis, but its flaws
are manifest in comparison to the DOL’s
rule and the authority enabling it.
Conclusion 189
Surely, no one can seriously believe
that today’s rule is primarily intended to
inform employees of their Section 7
right to refrain from or to oppose
organizational activities, collective
bargaining, and union representation.
My colleagues seek through
promulgation of this rule to reverse the
steady downward trend in union
density among private sector employees
in the non-agricultural American
workforce. Theirs is a policy choice
which they purport to effectuate with
the force of law on several fronts in
rulemaking and in case-by-case
adjudication. In this instance, their
action in declaring that employers
violate the law by failing to inform
employees of their Section 7 rights is
both unauthorized and arbitrary and
capricious. Regardless of the arguable
merits of their policy choice or the
broad scope of Chevron deference and
the Board’s rulemaking authority, I am
confident that a reviewing court will
soon rescue the Board from itself and
restore the law to where it was before
the sorcerer’s apprentice sent it askew.
V. Regulatory Procedures
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires
agencies promulgating final rules to
prepare a final regulatory flexibility
analysis and to develop alternatives
188 San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon,
359 U.S. 236, 244 (1959)
189 Because I find the rule is invalid, I find it
unnecessary to comment on the content of the
notice or the consequences, other than finding an
unfair labor practice, if an employer fails to post the
required notice. For the reasons stated in my
dissenting opinion in J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB
No. 9 (2010), I also disagree with the rule’s
requirement that certain employers must also
electronically distribute the notice.
wherever possible, when drafting
regulations that will have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The focus of the RFA is to
ensure that agencies ‘‘review draft rules
to assess and take appropriate account
of the potential impact on small
businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and small organizations,
as provided by the [RFA].’’ E.O. 13272,
Sec. 1, 67 FR 53461 (‘‘Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking’’). However, an
agency is not required to prepare a final
regulatory flexibility analysis for a final
rule if the agency head certifies that the
rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. 5
U.S.C. 605(b). Based on the analysis
below, in which the Board has
estimated the financial burdens to
employers subject to the NLRA
associated with complying with the
requirements contained in this final
rule, the Board has certified to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA) that this
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
The primary goal of this rule is
notifying employees of their rights
under the NLRA. This goal is achieved
through the posting of notices by
employers subject to the NLRA of the
rights of employees under the NLRA.
The Board will make the notices
available at no cost to employers; there
are no information collection, record
keeping, or reporting requirements.
The Board estimates that in order to
comply with this rule, each employer
subject to the NLRA will spend a total
of 2 hours during the first year in which
the rule is in effect. This includes 30
minutes for the employer to learn where
and how to post the required notices, 30
minutes to acquire the notices from the
Board or its Web site, and 60 minutes
to post them physically and
electronically, depending on where and
how the employer customarily posts
notices to employees. The Board
assumes that these activities will be
performed by a professional or business
worker, who, according to Bureau of
Labor Statistics data, earned a total
hourly wage of about $32.20 in March
2011, including fringe benefits. 190 The
190 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, ‘‘Economic News Release,’’ Table
B–8, June 3, 2011 (available at http://www.bls.gov).
(The Board is administratively informed that BLS
estimates that fringe benefits are approximately
equal to 40 percent of hourly wages. Thus, to
calculate total average hourly earnings, BLS
multiplies average hourly wages by 1.4. In March,
2011, average hourly wages for professional and
VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
Board then multiplied this figure by
2 hours to estimate the average costs for
employers to comply with this rule
during the first year in which the rule
is in effect. Accordingly, this rule is
estimated to impose average costs of
$64.40 per employer subject to the
NLRA (2 hours × $32.20) during the first
year. 191 These costs will decrease
dramatically in subsequent years
because the only employers affected
will be those that did not previously
satisfy their posting requirements or that
have since expanded their facilities or
established new ones. Because the final
rule will not require employers to post
the notice by email, instant messaging,
text messaging, and the like, the cost of
compliance should be, if anything,
somewhat less than the Board
previously estimated.
According to the United States Census
Bureau, there were approximately 6
million businesses with employees in
2007. Of those, the SBA estimates that
all but about 18,300 were small
businesses with fewer than 500
employees. 192 This rule does not apply
to employers that do not meet the
Board’s jurisdictional requirements, but
business workers were $23.00. Table B–8.
Accordingly, the Board multiplied that number by
1.4 to arrive at its estimate of $32.20 average hourly
earnings, including fringe benefits.) In the NPRM,
the Board estimated hourly earnings of $31.02,
based on BLS data from January 2009. 75 FR 80415.
The estimate has been updated to reflect increases
in hourly earnings since that time. Those increases
have been relatively minor, and do not affect the
Board’s conclusion that the economic impact of the
rule will not be significant; see discussion below.
191 The National Roofing Contractors Association
asserts (without support) that ‘‘federal agencies
have a notoriously poor track record in estimating
the costs of new regulations on businesses’’; it
therefore predicts that ‘‘the actual cost for many
employers could be considerably higher.’’ The
Board recognizes that some employers, generally
firms with extensive and/or multiple facilities, may
incur initial compliance costs in excess of the
Board’s estimate. For example, a company with
multiple locations may require more than 30
minutes to physically post the notices on all of its
various bulletin boards. The Board’s estimate,
however, is an average for all employers; many
small employers, especially those with only one
facility and/or limited electronic communication
with employees, may incur lower compliance costs.
In this regard, however, contrary to numerous
comments, such as that of St Mar Enterprises, Inc.,
the Board does not expect that the rule will be
‘‘very burdensome’’ for businesses with more than
one facility. Normally, such firms should have to
learn about the rule’s requirements and acquire the
notices only once, no matter how many facilities are
involved. The same should be true for electronic
posting: downloading the notice and posting it on
an employer’s Web site normally should have to be
done once for all facilities. Thus, the only
additional costs involved for multi-facility firms
should be those of physically posting the notices at
each facility.
192 Source: SBA Office of Advocacy estimates
based on data from the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, and trends from
the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Business Employment Dynamics.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54043
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
the Board does not have the means to
calculate the number of small
businesses within the Board’s
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Board
assumes for purposes of this analysis
that the great majority of the nearly 6
million small businesses will be
affected, and further that this number is
a substantial number within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 601. However, as
discussed below, because the economic
impact on those employers is minimal,
the Board concludes that, under 5
U.S.C. 605, the final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on any
small employers.
The RFA does not define ‘‘significant
economic impact.’’ 5 U.S.C. 601. In the
absence of specific definitions, ‘‘what is
‘significant’ * * * will vary depending
on the problem that needs to be
addressed, the rule’s requirements, and
the preliminary assessment of the rule’s
impact.’’ See A Guide for Government
Agencies: How to Comply with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, Office of
Advocacy, U.S. Small Business
Administration at 17 (available at
http://www.sba.gov) (SBA Guide). As to
economic impact and whether it is
significant, one important indicator is
the cost of compliance in relation to
revenue of the entity or the percentage
of profits affected. Id. at 17. More
specifically, the criteria to be considered
are:
• Whether the rule will lead to longterm
insolvency, i.e., regulatory costs
that significantly reduce profits;
• Whether the rule will lead to shortterm
insolvency, i.e., increasing
operating expenses or new debt more
than cash reserves and cash flow can
support, causing nonmarginal firms to
close;
• Whether the rule will have
disproportionate effects, placing small
entities at a significant competitive
disadvantage; and
• Whether the rule will result in
inefficiency, i.e., in social costs to small
entities that outweigh the social benefits
resulting from the rule. Id. at 26.
Applying these standards, the Board
concludes that the economic impact of
its notice-posting rule on small
employers is not significant. The Board
has determined that the average cost of
complying with the rule in the first year
for all employers subject to the NLRA
will be $64.40. It is unlikely in the
extreme that this minimal cost would
lead to either the short- or long-term
insolvency of any business entity, or
place small employers at a competitive
disadvantage. Since this rule applies
only to organizations within the NLRB’s
jurisdictional standards, the smallest
employer subject to the rule must have
an annual inflow or outflow across state
lines of at least $50,000. Siemons
Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81 (1959).
Given that the Board estimates that this
rule will cost, on average, $64.40, the
total cost for the smallest affected
companies would be an amount equal to
less than two-tenths of one percent of
that required annual inflow or outflow
(.13%). The Board concludes that such
a small percentage is highly unlikely to
adversely affect a small business. 193
And, in the Board’s judgment, the social
benefits of employees’ (and employers’)
becoming familiar with employees’
NLRA rights far outweigh the minimal
costs to employers of posting notices
informing employees of those rights. 194
For all the foregoing reasons, the
Board has concluded that the final rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. 5 U.S.C. 605.
As discussed in the NPRM, because it
assumes that a substantial number of
small businesses will be required to
comply with the rule, the Board
preliminarily considered alternatives
that would minimize the impact of the
rule, including a tiered approach for
small entities with only a few
employees. However, as it also
explained, the Board rejected those
alternatives, concluding that a tiered
approach or an exemption for some
small entities would substantially
undermine the purpose of the rule
because so many employers would be
exempt under the SBA definitions.
Given the very small estimated cost of
compliance, it is possible that the
burden on a small business of
determining whether it fell into a
particular tier might exceed the burden
of compliance. The Board further
pointed out that Congress gave the
Board very broad jurisdiction, with no
suggestion that it wanted to limit
coverage of any part of the NLRA to
only larger employers. The Board also
believes that employees of small
employers have no less need of a Board
notice than have employees of larger
employers. Finally, the Board’s
jurisdictional standards mean that very
small employers will not be covered by
the rule in any case. 75 FR 80416. (A
summary of the Board’s discretionary
jurisdictional standards appears in
§ 104.204, below.) Thus, although
193 In reaching this conclusion, the Board believes
it is likely that employers that might otherwise be
significantly affected even by the low cost of
compliance under this rule will not meet the
Board’s jurisdictional requirements, and
consequently those employers will not be subject to
this rule.
194 See further discussion in section II, subsection
C, Factual Support for the Rule, above.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
several comments urge that small
employers be exempted from the rule,
the Board remains persuaded, for the
reasons set forth in the NPRM, that such
an exemption is unwarranted. 195
Some comments contend that, in
concluding that the proposed rule will
not have a significant impact on small
employers, the Board understates the
rule’s actual prospective costs. One
comment, from Baker & Daniels LLP,
argues that the Board improperly
focuses solely on the cost of complying
with the rule—i.e., of printing and
posting the notice—and ignored the
‘‘actual economic impact of the rule’s
effect and purpose.’’ According to this
comment, it is predictable that, as more
employees become aware of their NLRA
rights, they will file more unfair labor
practice charges and elect unions to
serve as their collective-bargaining
representatives. The comment further
asserts that the Board has ignored the
‘‘economic realities of unionization,’’
specifically that union wages are
inflationary; that unions make business
less flexible, less competitive, and less
profitable; and that unions cause job
loss and stifle economic recovery from
recessions. Accordingly, this comment
contends that ‘‘the Board’s RFA
certification is invalid, and [that] the
Board must prepare an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis.’’ Numerous other
comments echo similar concerns, but
without reference to the RFA.
The Board disagrees with the
comment submitted by Baker & Daniels
LLP. 196 Section 605(b) of the RFA states
that an agency need not prepare an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis if
the agency head certifies that the rule
195 Cass County Electric Cooperative says that,
after estimating the average cost of compliance, ‘‘the
NLRB quickly digresses into an attempt to estimate
the cost of the proposed rule on only small
businesses.’’ The Board responds that in estimating
the cost of the rule on small businesses, it was
doing what the RFA explicitly requires (and that
focusing on small businesses, which comprise more
than 99 percent of potentially affected firms, is
hardly a ‘‘digression’’). The comment also asserts
that the Board concluded ‘‘that the cost of
estimating the implementation cost will likely
exceed the cost of implementation, and thus is not
warranted. At best, this is a poor excuse to justify
the rule.’’ This misstates the Board’s observation
that ‘‘Given the very small estimated cost of
compliance, it is possible that the burden on a small
business of determining whether it fell into a
particular tier might exceed the burden of
compliance.’’ This observation was one of the
reasons why the Board rejected a tiered approach
to coverage for small entities, not an ‘‘excuse to
justify the rule.’’ 75 FR 80416.
196 In any event, the comment from Baker &
Daniels LLP and related comments are difficult to
square with the assertions made in numerous other
comments that the notice posting is unnecessary
because employees are already well aware of their
NLRA rights and have made informed decisions not
to join unions or seek union representation.
54044 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b) (emphasis
added). The Board understands the
‘‘economic impact of * * * the rule’’ to
refer to the costs to affected entities of
complying with the rule, not to the
economic impact of a series of
subsequent decisions made by
individual actors in the economy that
are neither compelled by, nor the
inevitable result of, the rule. 197 Even if
more employees opt for union
representation after learning about their
rights, employers can avoid the adverse
effects on business costs, flexibility, and
profitability predicted by Baker &
Daniels LLP and other commenters by
not agreeing to unions’ demands that
might produce those effects. 198
The Board finds support for this view
in the language of Section 603 of the
RFA, which lists the items to be
included in an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis if one is required. 5
U.S.C. 603. Section 603(a) states only
that such analysis ‘‘shall describe the
impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603(a). However,
Section 603(b) provides, as relevant
here, that ‘‘[e]ach initial regulatory
flexibility analysis * * * shall
contain—* * *
‘‘(4) a description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities which will
be subject to the requirement and the
type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record[.]’’ 5
U.S.C. 603(b)(4) (emphasis added). The
Small Business Administration cites, as
examples of ‘‘other compliance
requirements,’’
(a) Capital costs for equipment needed to
meet the regulatory requirements; (b) costs of
modifying existing processes and procedures
to comply with the proposed rule; (c) lost
sales and profits resulting from the proposed
rule; (d) changes in market competition as a
result of the proposed rule and its impact on
small entities or specific submarkets of small
entities; (e) extra costs associated with the
payment of taxes or fees associated with the
proposed rule; and (f) hiring employees
dedicated to compliance with regulatory
requirements. 199
Thus, the ‘‘impact’’ on small entities
referred to in Section 603(a) refers only
197 For RFA purposes, the relevant economic
impact on small entities is the impact of
compliance with the rule. Mid-Tex Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327, 342 (D.C.
Cir. 1985), cited in SBA Guide, above, at 77.
198 NLRA Section 8(d) expressly states that the
obligation to bargain in good faith ‘‘does not compel
either party to agree to a proposal or require the
making of a concession[.]’’ 29 U.S.C. 158(d).
199 SBA Guide, above, at 34.
to the rule’s projected compliance costs
to small entities (none of which would
result from posting a workplace notice),
not the kinds of speculative and indirect
economic impact that Baker & Daniels
LLC invokes. 200
Associated Builders and Contractors,
Inc. (ABC) and Retail Industry Leaders
Association (RILA) contend that the
Board’s RFA analysis fails to account for
the costs of electronic notice posting,
especially for employers that
communicate with employees via
multiple electronic means. Both
comments deplore what they consider
to be the rule’s vague requirements in
this respect. ABC argues that clear
guidance is needed, and that the Board
should withdraw the electronic notice
posting requirements until more
information can be gathered. RILA
asserts that ‘‘[d]eciphering and
complying with the Board’s
requirements would impose significant
legal and administrative costs and
inevitably result [in] litigation as parties
disagree about when a communication
is ‘customarily used,’ and whether and
when employees need to be informed
through multiple communications.’’
Numerous comments assert that
employers, especially small employers
that lack professional human resources
staff, will incur significant legal
expenses as they attempt to comply
with the rule. For example, Fisher and
Phillips, a management law firm, urges
that the cost of legal fees should be
included in assessing the economic
impact of the proposed rule: ‘‘[I]t might
be considered naïve to assume that a
significant percentage of small
employers would not seek the advice of
counsel, and it would be equally naïve
to assume that a significant percentage
of those newly-engaged lawyers could
be retained for as little as $31.02/hour.’’
Those comments are not persuasive.
The choice to retain counsel is not a
requirement for complying with the
rule. This is not a complicated or
nuanced rule. The employer is only
required to post a notice provided by
the Board in the same manner in which
that employer customarily posts notices
to its employees. The Board has
explained above what the rule’s
electronic posting provisions require of
employers in general, and it has
simplified those provisions by
eliminating the requirement that notices
be provided by email and many other
forms of electronic communication. 201 It
200 Baker & Daniels LLP cites no authority to
support its contention that the RFA is concerned
with costs other than the costs of compliance with
the rule, and the Board is aware of none.
201 Contrary to ABC’s and RILA’s assertions, the
Board did estimate the cost of complying with the
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
should not be necessary for employers,
small or large, to add human resources
staff, retain counsel, or resort to
litigation if they have questions
concerning whether the proposed rule
applies to them or about the
requirements for technical compliance
with the rule, including how the
electronic posting provisions
specifically affect their enterprises. 202
Such questions can be directed to the
Board’s regional offices, either by
telephone, personal visit, email, or
regular mail, and will be answered free
of charge by representatives of the
Board. 203
Cass County Electric Cooperative
argues that the Board failed to take into
account legal expenses that employers
will incur if they fail to ‘‘follow the
letter of the proposed rule.’’ The
comment urges that the Board should
estimate the cost to businesses ‘‘should
they have to defend themselves against
an unfair labor practice for failure to
comply with the rule, no matter what
the circumstances for that failure might
be,’’ presumably including failures to
post the notice by employers that are
unaware of the rule and inadvertent
failures to comply with technical
posting requirements. International
Foodservice Distributors Association
contends that the Board also should
have considered the costs of tolling the
statute of limitations when employers
fail to post the notice. However, the
costs referred to in these comments are
costs of not complying with the rule, not
compliance costs. As stated above, for
RFA purposes, the relevant economic
analysis focuses on the costs of
complying with the rule. 204
rule’s electronic notice posting requirements; its
estimated average cost of $62.04 specifically
included such costs. 75 FR 80415. Although ABC
faults the Board for failing to issue a preliminary
request for information (RFI) concerning the ways
employers communicate with employees
electronically, the Board did ask for comments
concerning its RFA certification in the NPRM, id.
at 80416. In this regard, ABC states only that ‘‘many
ABC member companies communicate with
employees through email or other electronic
means,’’ which the Board expressly contemplated
in the NPRM, id. at 80413, and which is also the
Board’s practice with respect to communicating
with its own employees. If ABC has more specific
information it has failed to provide it. In any event,
the final rule will not require email or many other
types of electronic notice.
202 Association of Corporate Counsel contends
that employers will have to modify their policies
and procedures manuals as a result of the rule. The
Board questions that contention, but even if some
employers do take those steps, they would not be
a cost of complying with the rule.
203 Fisher and Phillips also suggest that the Board
failed to take into account the effect that the
proposed rule would have on the Board’s own case
intake and budget. The RFA, however, does not
require an estimate of the economic effects of
proposed rules on Federal agencies.
204 See fn. 197, above.
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54045
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Some comments assert that the
content of the notice will prompt
employee questions, which managers
and supervisors will have to answer,
and be trained to answer, and that the
Board failed to account for the cost of
such training and discussions in terms
of lost work time. 205 Other comments
contend that employers will incur costs
of opposing an increased number of
union organizing campaigns. 206
Relatedly, several comments state that
employers should be allowed to, and/or
will respond to the notice by informing
employees of aspects of unionization
and collective bargaining that are not
covered by the notice; some suggest that
employers may post their own notices
presenting their point of view. 207 (A few
comments, by contrast, protest that
employers will be prohibited from
presenting their side of the issues raised
by the posting of notices.) The Board
responds that any costs that employers
may incur in responding to employee
questions, in setting forth the
employers’ views on unions and
collective bargaining, or in opposing
union organizing efforts will be incurred
entirely at the employers’ own volition;
they are not a cost of complying with
the rule.
As discussed above, many comments
express concerns that union supporters
will tear down the notices in order to
expose employers to 8(a)(1) liability for
failing to post the notices. Some of these
comments also contend that, as a result,
employers will have to spend
considerable time monitoring the
notices to make sure that they are not
torn down, or incur additional costs of
installing tamper-proof bulletin boards.
One commenter predicts that his
employer will have to spend $20,000 for
such bulletin boards at a single facility,
or a total of $100,000 at all of its
facilities, and even then will have to
spend two hours each month
monitoring the postings. For the reasons
discussed above, the Board is not
convinced at this time that the problem
of posters being torn down is anything
more than speculative, and accordingly
is inclined to discount these predictions
substantially. In any event, the rule
requires only that employers ‘‘take
reasonable steps’’—not every
conceivable step—to ensure that the
205 See, e.g., comments of Cass County Electric
Cooperative and Baker & McKenzie. The latter
estimates that each private sector employee will
spend at least an hour attending meetings
concerning the content of the notice, and that the
cost to the economy in terms of lost employee work
time will be $3.5 billion.
206 See, e.g., comment of Dr. Pepper Snapple
Group.
207 See, e.g., comments of Metro Toyota and
Capital Associated Industries, Inc.
notice is not defaced or torn down. The
rule does not require, or even suggest,
that employers must spend thousands of
dollars to install tamper-proof bulletin
boards or that employers must
constantly monitor the notice. 208
One comment contends that most
small employers do not have 11 x 17-
inch color printers, and therefore will
have to have the posters printed
commercially at a cost that, alone,
assertedly will exceed the Board’s
estimate of the cost of the rule. The
Board understands the concerns of this
small employer. The Board points out
that it will furnish a reasonable number
of copies of the notice free of charge to
any requesting employer. Moreover, as
explained above, employers may
reproduce the notice in black-and-white
and may print the notice on two
standard-sized, 8.5 x 11-inch pages and
tape or bind them together, rather than
having them printed commercially.
A number of comments argue that the
rule will lead to workplace conflict. For
example, the comment of Wiseda
Corporation contains the following:
Unnecessary Confusion and Conflict in the
Workplace. The labor law terms and
industrial union language of the proposed
notice (such as hiring hall and concerted
activity) present an unclear and adversarial
picture to employees. Most non-union
employers like us, who wish to remain nonunion,
encourage cooperative problem
solving. In a modern non-union workplace,
to require such a poster encouraging strikes
and restroom leaflets is disrespectful of the
hard work and good intentions of employers,
management, and employees. The proposed
poster would exist alongside other company
notices on problem-solving, respect for
others, resolving harassment issues, etc., and
would clearly be out of character and
inappropriate. (Emphasis in original.)
Another comment puts it more bluntly:
‘‘The notice as proposed is more of an
invitation to cause employee/employer
disputes rather than an explanation of
employee rights.’’ The Board’s response
is that the ill effects predicted in these
comments, like the predicted adverse
effects of unionization discussed above,
are not costs of compliance with the
rule, but of employees’ learning about
their workplace rights. In addition,
Congress, not the Board, created the
subject rights and did so after finding
that vesting employees with these rights
would reduce industrial strife.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 209
The final rule imposes certain
minimal burdens associated with the
208 Contrary to one comment’s suggestion, no
employer will be ‘‘bankrupted’’ by fines imposed if
the notice is torn down. As explained above, the
Board does not have the authority to impose fines.
209 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:02 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
posting of the employee notice required
by § 104.202. As noted in § 104.202(e),
the Board will make the notice
available, and employers will be
permitted to post copies of the notice
that are exact duplicates in content,
size, format, and type size and style.
Under the regulations implementing the
PRA, ‘‘[t]he public disclosure of
information originally supplied by the
Federal government to [a] recipient for
the purpose of disclosure to the public’’
is not considered a ‘‘collection of
information’’ under the Act. See 5 CFR
1320.3(c)(2). Therefore, contrary to
several comments, the posting
requirement is not subject to the
PRA. 210
The Board received no comments
suggesting that the PRA covers the costs
to the Federal government of
administering the regulations
established by the proposed rule.
Therefore, the NPRM’s discussion of
this issue stands.
Accordingly, this rule does not
contain information collection
requirements that require approval by
the Office of Management and Budget
under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).
C. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 211
This rule is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined
by Section 804(2) of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (Congressional Review Act),
because it will have an effect on the
economy of more than $100 million, at
least during the year it takes effect. 5
U.S.C. 804(2)(A). 212 Accordingly, the
210 The California Chamber of Commerce and the
National Council of Agricultural Employers dispute
this conclusion. They assert that the PRA
distinguishes between the ‘‘agencies’’ to which it
applies and the ‘‘Federal government,’’ and
therefore that the exemption provided in 5 CFR
1320.3(c)(2) applies only to information supplied by
‘‘the actual Federal government,’’ not to information
supplied by a Federal agency such as the Board.
The flaw in this argument is that there is no such
legal entity as ‘‘the [actual] Federal government.’’
What is commonly referred to as ‘‘the Federal
government’’ is a collection of the three branches
of the United States government, including the
departments of the executive branch, and the
various independent agencies, including the Board.
If ‘‘the Federal government’’ can be said to act at
all, it can do so only through one or more of those
entities—in this instance, the Board—and that is
undoubtedly the meaning that the drafters of 5 CFR
1320(c)(2) meant to convey.
211 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
212 A rule is a ‘‘major rule’’ for CRA purposes if
it will (A) Have an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more; (B) cause a major increase
in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, government agencies, or geographic
regions; or (C) result in significant adverse effects
on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability of United
States-based enterprises to compete with foreignbased
enterprises in domestic and export markets.
5 U.S.C. 804. The notice-posting rule is a ‘‘major
Continued
54046 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
effective date of the rule is 75 days after
publication in the Federal Register. 213
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 104
Administrative practice and
procedure, Employee rights, Labor
unions.
Text of Final Rule
Accordingly, a new part 104 is added
to 29 CFR chapter 1 to read as follows:
PART 104—NOTIFICATION OF
EMPLOYEE RIGHTS; OBLIGATIONS
OF EMPLOYERS
Subpart A—Definitions, Requirements for
Employee Notice, and Exceptions and
Exemptions
Sec.
104.201 What definitions apply to this part?
104.202 What employee notice must
employers subject to the NLRA post in
the workplace?
104.203 Are Federal contractors covered
under this part?
104.204 What entities are not subject to this
part?
Appendix to Subpart A—Text of Employee
Notice
Subpart B—General Enforcement and
Complaint Procedures
104.210 How will the Board determine
whether an employer is in compliance
with this part?
104.211 What are the procedures for filing
a charge?
104.212 What are the procedures to be
followed when a charge is filed alleging
that an employer has failed to post the
required employee notice?
104.213 What remedies are available to cure
a failure to post the employee notice?
104.214 How might other Board
proceedings be affected by failure to post
the employee notice?
Subpart C—Ancillary Matters
104.220 What other provisions apply to this
part?
rule’’ because, as explained in the discussion of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act above, the Board has
estimated that the average cost of compliance with
the rule will be approximately $64.40 per affected
employer; thus, because there are some 6 million
employers that could potentially be affected by the
rule, the total cost to the economy of compliance
with the rule will be approximately $386.4 million.
As further explained, nearly all of that cost will be
incurred during the year in which the rule takes
effect; in subsequent years, the only costs of
compliance will be those incurred by employers
that either open new facilities or expand existing
ones, and those that for one reason or another fail
to comply with the rule during the first year. The
Board therefore expects that the costs of compliance
will be far less than $100 million in the second and
subsequent years. The Board is confident that the
rule will have none of the effects enumerated in 5
U.S.C. 804(2)(B) and (C) above.
213 The Board finds unpersuasive the suggestions
in several comments that the effective date of the
rule be postponed to as late as April 15, 2012. The
Board finds nothing in the requirements of the rule
or in the comments received that would warrant
postponing the effective date.
Authority: National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA), Section 6, 29 U.S.C. 156;
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.
Subpart A—Definitions, Requirements
for Employee Notice, and Exceptions
and Exemptions
§ 104.201 What definitions apply to this
part?
Employee includes any employee, and
is not limited to the employees of a
particular employer, unless the NLRA
explicitly states otherwise. The term
includes anyone whose work has ceased
because of, or in connection with, any
current labor dispute or because of any
unfair labor practice, and who has not
obtained any other regular and
substantially equivalent employment.
However, it does not include
agricultural laborers, supervisors, or
independent contractors, or anyone
employed in the domestic service of any
family or person at his home, or by his
parent or spouse, or by an employer
subject to the Railway Labor Act (45
U.S.C. 151 et seq.), or by any other
person who is not an employer as
defined in the NLRA. 29 U.S.C. 152(3).
Employee notice means the notice set
forth in the Appendix to Subpart A of
this part that employers subject to the
NLRA must post pursuant to this part.
Employer includes any person acting
as an agent of an employer, directly or
indirectly. The term does not include
the United States or any wholly owned
Government corporation, or any Federal
Reserve Bank, or any State or political
subdivision thereof, or any person
subject to the Railway Labor Act, or any
labor organization (other than when
acting as an employer), or anyone acting
in the capacity of officer or agent of
such labor organization. 29 U.S.C.
152(2). Further, the term ‘‘employer’’
does not include entities over which the
Board has been found not to have
jurisdiction, or over which the Board
has chosen through regulation or
adjudication not to assert jurisdiction.
Labor organization means any
organization of any kind, or any agency
or employee representation committee
or plan, in which employees participate
and which exists for the purpose, in
whole or in part, of dealing with
employers concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or conditions of work. 29
U.S.C. 152(5).
National Labor Relations Board
(Board) means the National Labor
Relations Board provided for in section
3 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29
U.S.C. 153. 29 U.S.C. 152(10).
Person includes one or more
individuals, labor organizations,
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
partnerships, associations, corporations,
legal representatives, trustees, trustees
in cases under title 11 of the United
States Code, or receivers. 29 U.S.C.
152(1).
Rules, regulations, and orders, as used
in § 104.202, means rules, regulations,
and relevant orders issued by the Board
pursuant to this part.
Supervisor means any individual
having authority, in the interest of the
employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay
off, recall, promote, discharge, assign,
reward, or discipline other employees,
or responsibly to direct them, or to
adjust their grievances, or effectively to
recommend such action, if in
connection with the foregoing the
exercise of such authority is not of a
merely routine or clerical nature, but
requires the use of independent
judgment. 29 U.S.C. 152(11).
Unfair labor practice means any
unfair labor practice listed in section 8
of the National Labor Relations Act, 29
U.S.C. 158. 29 U.S.C. 152(8).
Union means a labor organization as
defined above.
§ 104.202 What employee notice must
employers subject to the NLRA post in the
workplace?
(a) Posting of employee notice. All
employers subject to the NLRA must
post notices to employees, in
conspicuous places, informing them of
their NLRA rights, together with Board
contact information and information
concerning basic enforcement
procedures, in the language set forth in
the Appendix to Subpart A of this part.
(b) Size and form requirements. The
notice to employees shall be at least 11
inches by 17 inches in size, and in such
format, type size, and style as the Board
shall prescribe. If an employer chooses
to print the notice after downloading it
from the Board’s Web site, the printed
notice shall be at least 11 inches by 17
inches in size.
(c) Adaptation of language. The
National Labor Relations Board may
find that an Act of Congress,
clarification of existing law by the
courts or the Board, or other
circumstances make modification of the
employee notice necessary to achieve
the purposes of this part. In such
circumstances, the Board will promptly
issue rules, regulations, or orders as are
needed to ensure that all future
employee notices contain appropriate
language to achieve the purposes of this
part.
(d) Physical posting of employee
notice. The employee notice must be
posted in conspicuous places where
they are readily seen by employees,
including all places where notices to
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54047
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
employees concerning personnel rules
or policies are customarily posted.
Where 20 percent or more of an
employer’s workforce is not proficient
in English and speaks a language other
than English, the employer must post
the notice in the language employees
speak. If an employer’s workforce
includes two or more groups
constituting at least 20 percent of the
workforce who speak different
languages, the employer must either
physically post the notice in each of
those languages or, at the employer’s
option, post the notice in the language
spoken by the largest group of
employees and provide each employee
in each of the other language groups a
copy of the notice in the appropriate
language. If an employer requests from
the Board a notice in a language in
which it is not available, the requesting
employer will not be liable for noncompliance
with the rule until the
notice becomes available in that
language. An employer must take
reasonable steps to ensure that the
notice is not altered, defaced, covered
by any other material, or otherwise
rendered unreadable.
(e) Obtaining a poster with the
employee notice. A poster with the
required employee notice, including a
poster with the employee notice
translated into languages other than
English, will be printed by the Board,
and may be obtained from the Board’s
office, 1099 14th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20570, or from any of
the Board’s regional, subregional, or
resident offices. Addresses and
telephone numbers of those offices may
be found on the Board’s Web site at
http://www.nlrb.gov. A copy of the
poster in English and in languages other
than English may also be downloaded
from the Board’s Web site at http://
www.nlrb.gov. Employers also may
reproduce and use copies of the Board’s
official poster, provided that the copies
duplicate the official poster in size,
content, format, and size and style of
type. In addition, employers may use
commercial services to provide the
employee notice poster consolidated
onto one poster with other Federally
mandated labor and employment
notices, so long as the consolidation
does not alter the size, content, format,
or size and style of type of the poster
provided by the Board.
(f) Electronic posting of employee
notice. (1) In addition to posting the
required notice physically, an employer
must also post the required notice on an
intranet or internet site if the employer
customarily communicates with its
employees about personnel rules or
policies by such means. An employer
that customarily posts notices to
employees about personnel rules or
policies on an intranet or internet site
will satisfy the electronic posting
requirement by displaying
prominently—i.e., no less prominently
than other notices to employees—on
such a site either an exact copy of the
poster, downloaded from the Board’s
Web site, or a link to the Board’s Web
site that contains the poster. The link to
the Board’s Web site must read,
‘‘Employee Rights under the National
Labor Relations Act.’’
(2) Where 20 percent or more of an
employer’s workforce is not proficient
in English and speaks a language other
than English, the employer must
provide notice as required in paragraph
(f)(1) of this section in the language the
employees speak. If an employer’s
workforce includes two or more groups
constituting at least 20 percent of the
workforce who speak different
languages, the employer must provide
the notice in each such language. The
Board will provide translations of the
link to the Board’s Web site for any
employer that must or wishes to display
the link on its Web site. If an employer
requests from the Board a notice in a
language in which it is not available, the
requesting employer will not be liable
for non-compliance with the rule until
the notice becomes available in that
language.
§ 104.203 Are Federal contractors covered
under this part?
Yes, Federal contractors are covered.
However, contractors may comply with
the provisions of this part by posting the
notices to employees required under the
Department of Labor’s notice-posting
rule, 29 CFR part 471.
§ 104.204 What entities are not subject to
this part?
(a) The following entities are
excluded from the definition of
‘‘employer’’ under the National Labor
Relations Act and are not subject to the
requirements of this part:
Employer category
TABLE TO § 104.204
Amusement industry ............................................................................................................................ $500,000.
Apartment houses, condominiums, cooperatives ................................................................................ $500,000.
Architects ............................................................................................................................................. Nonretail standard.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
(1) The United States or any wholly
owned Government corporation;
(2) Any Federal Reserve Bank;
(3) Any State or political subdivision
thereof;
(4) Any person subject to the Railway
Labor Act;
(5) Any labor organization (other than
when acting as an employer); or
(6) Anyone acting in the capacity of
officer or agent of such labor
organization.
(b) In addition, employers employing
exclusively workers who are excluded
from the definition of ‘‘employee’’
under § 104.201 are not covered by the
requirements of this part.
(c) This part does not apply to entities
over which the Board has been found
not to have jurisdiction, or over which
the Board has chosen through regulation
or adjudication not to assert
jurisdiction.
(d)(1) This part does not apply to
entities whose impact on interstate
commerce, although more than de
minimis, is so slight that they do not
meet the Board’s discretionary
jurisdiction standards. The most
commonly applicable standards are:
(i) The retail standard, which applies
to employers in retail businesses,
including home construction. The Board
will take jurisdiction over any such
employer that has a gross annual
volume of business of $500,000 or more.
(ii) The nonretail standard, which
applies to most other employers. It is
based either on the amount of goods
sold or services provided by the
employer out of state (called ‘‘outflow’’)
or goods or services purchased by the
employer from out of state (called
‘‘inflow’’). The Board will take
jurisdiction over any employer with an
annual inflow or outflow of at least
$50,000. Outflow can be either direct—
to out-of-state purchasers—or indirect—
to purchasers that meet other
jurisdictional standards. Inflow can also
be direct—purchased directly from out
of state—or indirect—purchased from
sellers within the state that purchased
them from out-of-state sellers.
(2) There are other standards for
miscellaneous categories of employers.
These standards are based on the
employer’s gross annual volume of
business unless stated otherwise. These
standards are listed in the Table to this
section.
Jurisdictional standard
54048 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE TO § 104.204—Continued
Employer category
Jurisdictional standard
Art museums, cultural centers, libraries .............................................................................................. $1 million.
Bandleaders ......................................................................................................................................... Retail/nonretail (depends on customer).
Cemeteries ........................................................................................................................................... $500,000.
Colleges, universities, other private schools ....................................................................................... $1 million.
Communications (radio, TV, cable, telephone, telegraph) .................................................................. $100,000.
Credit unions ........................................................................................................................................ Either retail or nonretail standard.
Day care centers ................................................................................................................................. $250,000.
Gaming industry ................................................................................................................................... $500,000.
Health care institutions:
Nursing homes, visiting nurses associations ............................................................................... $100,000.
Hospitals, blood banks, other health care facilities (including doctors’ and dentists’ offices) ..... $250,000.
Hotels and motels ................................................................................................................................ $500,000.
Instrumentalities of interstate commerce ............................................................................................. $50,000.
Labor organizations (as employers) .................................................................................................... Nonretail standard.
Law firms; legal service organizations ................................................................................................ $250,000.
Newspapers (with interstate contacts) ................................................................................................ $200,000.
Nonprofit charitable institutions ........................................................................................................... Depends on the entity’s substantive purpose.
Office buildings; shopping centers ...................................................................................................... $100,000.
Private clubs ........................................................................................................................................ $500,000.
Public utilities ....................................................................................................................................... $250,000 or nonretail standard.
Restaurants .......................................................................................................................................... $500,000.
Social services organizations .............................................................................................................. $250,000.
Symphony orchestras .......................................................................................................................... $1 million.
Taxicabs ............................................................................................................................................... $500,000.
Transit systems .................................................................................................................................... $250,000.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(3) If an employer can be classified
under more than one category, the
Board will assert jurisdiction if the
employer meets the jurisdictional
standard of any of those categories.
(4) There are a few employer
categories without specific
jurisdictional standards:
(i) Enterprises whose operations have
a substantial effect on national defense
or that receive large amounts of Federal
funds
(ii) Enterprises in the District of
Columbia
(iii) Financial information
organizations and accounting firms
(iv) Professional sports
(v) Stock brokerage firms
(vi) U. S. Postal Service
(5) A more complete discussion of the
Board’s jurisdictional standards may be
found in An Outline of Law and
Procedure in Representation Cases,
Chapter 1, found on the Board’s Web
site, http://www.nlrb.gov.
(e) This part does not apply to the
United States Postal Service.
Appendix to Subpart A—Text of
Employee Notice
‘‘EMPLOYEE RIGHTS UNDER THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
guarantees the right of employees to organize
and bargain collectively with their
employers, and to engage in other protected
concerted activity or to refrain from engaging
in any of the above activity. Employees
covered by the NLRA* are protected from
certain types of employer and union
misconduct. This Notice gives you general
information about your rights, and about the
obligations of employers and unions under
the NLRA. Contact the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB), the Federal agency
that investigates and resolves complaints
under the NLRA, using the contact
information supplied below, if you have any
questions about specific rights that may
apply in your particular workplace.
‘‘Under the NLRA, you have the right to:
• Organize a union to negotiate with your
employer concerning your wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment.
• Form, join or assist a union.
• Bargain collectively through
representatives of employees’ own choosing
for a contract with your employer setting
your wages, benefits, hours, and other
working conditions.
• Discuss your wages and benefits and
other terms and conditions of employment or
union organizing with your co-workers or a
union.
• Take action with one or more co-workers
to improve your working conditions by,
among other means, raising work-related
complaints directly with your employer or
with a government agency, and seeking help
from a union.
• Strike and picket, depending on the
purpose or means of the strike or the
picketing.
• Choose not to do any of these activities,
including joining or remaining a member of
a union.
‘‘Under the NLRA, it is illegal for your
employer to:
• Prohibit you from talking about or
soliciting for a union during non-work time,
such as before or after work or during break
times; or from distributing union literature
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
during non-work time, in non-work areas,
such as parking lots or break rooms.
• Question you about your union support
or activities in a manner that discourages you
from engaging in that activity.
• Fire, demote, or transfer you, or reduce
your hours or change your shift, or otherwise
take adverse action against you, or threaten
to take any of these actions, because you join
or support a union, or because you engage in
concerted activity for mutual aid and
protection, or because you choose not to
engage in any such activity.
• Threaten to close your workplace if
workers choose a union to represent them.
• Promise or grant promotions, pay raises,
or other benefits to discourage or encourage
union support.
• Prohibit you from wearing union hats,
buttons, t-shirts, and pins in the workplace
except under special circumstances.
• Spy on or videotape peaceful union
activities and gatherings or pretend to do so.
‘‘Under the NLRA, it is illegal for a union
or for the union that represents you in
bargaining with your employer to:
• Threaten or coerce you in order to gain
your support for the union.
• Refuse to process a grievance because
you have criticized union officials or because
you are not a member of the union.
• Use or maintain discriminatory
standards or procedures in making job
referrals from a hiring hall.
• Cause or attempt to cause an employer
to discriminate against you because of your
union-related activity.
• Take adverse action against you because
you have not joined or do not support the
union.
‘‘If you and your co-workers select a union
to act as your collective bargaining
representative, your employer and the union
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
54049
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
are required to bargain in good faith in a
genuine effort to reach a written, binding
agreement setting your terms and conditions
of employment. The union is required to
fairly represent you in bargaining and
enforcing the agreement.
‘‘Illegal conduct will not be permitted. If
you believe your rights or the rights of others
have been violated, you should contact the
NLRB promptly to protect your rights,
generally within six months of the unlawful
activity. You may inquire about possible
violations without your employer or anyone
else being informed of the inquiry. Charges
may be filed by any person and need not be
filed by the employee directly affected by the
violation. The NLRB may order an employer
to rehire a worker fired in violation of the
law and to pay lost wages and benefits, and
may order an employer or union to cease
violating the law. Employees should seek
assistance from the nearest regional NLRB
office, which can be found on the Agency’s
Web site: http://www.nlrb.gov.
You can also contact the NLRB by calling
toll-free: 1–866–667–NLRB (6572) or (TTY)
1–866–315–NLRB (1–866–315–6572) for
hearing impaired.
If you do not speak or understand English
well, you may obtain a translation of this
notice from the NLRB’s Web site or by calling
the toll-free numbers listed above.
‘‘*The National Labor Relations Act covers
most private-sector employers. Excluded
from coverage under the NLRA are publicsector
employees, agricultural and domestic
workers, independent contractors, workers
employed by a parent or spouse, employees
of air and rail carriers covered by the Railway
Labor Act, and supervisors (although
supervisors that have been discriminated
against for refusing to violate the NLRA may
be covered).
‘‘This is an official Government Notice and
must not be defaced by anyone.’’
Subpart B—General Enforcement and
Complaint Procedures
§ 104.210 How will the Board determine
whether an employer is in compliance with
this part?
The Board has determined that
employees must be aware of their NLRA
rights in order to exercise those rights
effectively. Employers subject to this
rule are required to post the employee
notice to inform employees of their
rights. Failure to post the employee
notice may be found to interfere with,
restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed by
NLRA Section 7, 29 U.S.C. 157, in
violation of NLRA Section 8(a)(1), 29
U.S.C. 158(a)(1).
Normally, the Board will determine
whether an employer is in compliance
when a person files an unfair labor
practice charge alleging that the
employer has failed to post the
employee notice required under this
part. Filing a charge sets in motion the
Board’s procedures for investigating and
adjudicating alleged unfair labor
practices, and for remedying conduct
that the Board finds to be unlawful. See
NLRA Sections 10–11, 29 U.S.C. 160–
61, and 29 CFR part 102, subpart B.
§ 104.211 What are the procedures for
filing a charge?
(a) Filing charges. Any person (other
than Board personnel) may file a charge
with the Board alleging that an
employer has failed to post the
employee notice as required by this
part. A charge should be filed with the
Regional Director of the Region in
which the alleged failure to post the
required notice is occurring.
(b) Contents of charges. The charge
must be in writing and signed, and must
be sworn to before a Board agent, notary
public, or other person authorized to
administer oaths or take
acknowledgements, or contain a
declaration by the person signing it,
under penalty of perjury, that its
contents are true and correct. The
charge must include:
(1) The charging party’s full name and
address;
(2) If the charge is filed by a union,
the full name and address of any
national or international union of which
it is an affiliate or constituent unit;
(3) The full name and address of the
employer alleged to have violated this
part; and
(4) A clear and concise statement of
the facts constituting the alleged unfair
labor practice.
§ 104.212 What are the procedures to be
followed when a charge is filed alleging that
an employer has failed to post the required
employee notice?
(a) When a charge is filed with the
Board under this section, the Regional
Director will investigate the allegations
of the charge. If it appears that the
allegations are true, the Regional
Director will make reasonable efforts to
persuade the respondent employer to
post the required employee notice
expeditiously. If the employer does so,
the Board expects that there will rarely
be a need for further administrative
proceedings.
(b) If an alleged violation cannot be
resolved informally, the Regional
Director may issue a formal complaint
against the respondent employer,
alleging a violation of the notice-posting
requirement and scheduling a hearing
before an administrative law judge.
After a complaint issues, the matter will
be adjudicated in keeping with the
Board’s customary procedures. See
NLRA Sections 10 and 11, 29 U.S.C.
160, 161; 29 CFR part 102, subpart B.
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2
§ 104.213 What remedies are available to
cure a failure to post the employee notice?
(a) If the Board finds that the
respondent employer has failed to post
the required employee notices as
alleged, the respondent will be ordered
to cease and desist from the unlawful
conduct and post the required employee
notice, as well as a remedial notice. In
some instances additional remedies may
be appropriately invoked in keeping
with the Board’s remedial authority.
(b) Any employer that threatens or
retaliates against an employee for filing
charges or testifying at a hearing
concerning alleged violations of the
notice-posting requirement may be
found to have committed an unfair labor
practice. See NLRA Section 8(a)(1) and
8(a)(4), 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), (4).
§ 104.214 How might other Board
proceedings be affected by failure to post
the employee notice?
(a) Tolling of statute of limitations.
When an employee files an unfair labor
practice charge, the Board may find it
appropriate to excuse the employee
from the requirement that charges be
filed within six months after the
occurrence of the allegedly unlawful
conduct if the employer has failed to
post the required employee notice
unless the employee has received actual
or constructive notice that the conduct
complained of is unlawful. See NLRA
Section 10(b), 29 U.S.C. 160(b).
(b) Noncompliance as evidence of
unlawful motive. The Board may
consider a knowing and willful refusal
to comply with the requirement to post
the employee notice as evidence of
unlawful motive in a case in which
motive is an issue.
Subpart C—Ancillary Matters
§ 104.220 What other provisions apply to
this part?
(a) The regulations in this part do not
modify or affect the interpretation of
any other NLRB regulations or policy.
(b)(1) This subpart does not impair or
otherwise affect:
(i) Authority granted by law to a
department, agency, or the head thereof;
or
(ii) Functions of the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget
relating to budgetary, administrative, or
legislative proposals.
(2) This subpart must be implemented
consistent with applicable law and
subject to the availability of
appropriations.
(c) This part creates no right or
benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any
party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its
54050 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 168 / Tuesday, August 30, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
officers, employees, or agents, or any
other person.
Signed in Washington, DC, August 22,
2011.
Wilma B. Liebman,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2011–21724 Filed 8–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7545–01–P
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:19 Aug 29, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\30AUR2.SGM 30AUR2