Comment on FR Doc # 2011-15307

Re: Proposed Rule Governing Representation Case Procedures; RIN 3142-AA08
Dear Mr. Heltzer:
I am writing to share my concerns with the NLRB/Board's proposal to alter its process for union representation. The NLRB has not shown a need for new election rules and the proposal interferes with an employer’s ability to communicate with and provide information to employees regarding a union representation campaign.
First, I do not believe that the Board has properly established the need for changes to the election rules. Last year, the average time for a representation election for all petitions filed was 31 days. Even contested and other types of decisions have been issued within the timeframe goals established by the General Counsel, making wholesale changes in the rule unjustifiable.
The proposed rules do not properly balance the rights of employees, employers and labor unions in the pre-election period, and the shortened timeframes deprive employers of their due process rights under the NLRA. Communication with employees is a vital function in the workplace. I am concerned that these rule changes prevent employers from effectively communicating with employees about the unionization process.
The proposal also precludes employers from addressing any issue not raised in the Statement of Position. Coupled with the shortened timeframe for producing the Statement of Position, this provision is harmful to employers and likely to increase litigation related to election proceedings, rather than expedite them.
Another troubling fact is the requirement that employers turn over employee phone numbers and e-mail addresses but does not make clear whether this refers to home or work contact information. I am concerned about the invasion of employee privacy and workplace implications of this requirement.
Given the impact of this regulation on employers coupled with the lack of a rational basis for the proposal, I respectfully request this proposal be withdrawn.