Legal Experts Speak Out Against Congressional Overreach

- Joshua Friedlander

Since the 2010 elections, the nation has seen a concerted effort by conservative politicians to weaken American workers’ rights, both at the state level and in Congress. This sentiment has been clearly exhibited by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa (R-CA) who is waging an all-out corporate-directed attack on government agencies like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

On July 29, a group of 34 legal experts spoke out against Issa’s strong-arm tactics with an open letter condemning his interference with an ongoing law enforcement investigation into an NLRB complaint against the Boeing Corporation. Issa has used his committee to bully NLRB investigators and to characterize the agency's adherence to the law as somehow politically motivated. His actions in this case are clearly inappropriate, and are a prime example of congressional overreach.  

The letter from legal experts was spurred by a July 12 letter sent by Issa to Lafe Solomon, Acting General Counsel of the NLRB, demanding that the committee receive all investigation-related documents from the complaint against Boeing. Although Solomon has already released "discoverable" documents to ensure due process and a fair trial for both parties, Issa continues to demand all case-related documents.

The legal experts are "gravely concerned by the undue pressure that this [Issa's] letter, and its threats to compel disclosure of privileged documents, have placed on an independent law enforcement agency" and that the committee’s intervention in an ongoing investigation could result in federal courts nullifying and overturning the decision in the case. The experts argue that “such a result would jeopardize our long-held democratic principles and respect for the rule of law.” The academics urge the committee to “let this case proceed according to the policies established in the National Labor Relations Act without further interference.” More than 30 academics from 29 universities and law schools joined the letter.

The NLRB’s complaint again Boeing alleges that the company violated federal labor law by transferring an airplane production line from a union facility in the state of Washington to a non-union facility in South Carolina for retaliatory reasons. The case is currently being tried before Administrative Federal Judge Clifford Anderson, who has rejected Boeing’s motion of dismissal for failing to provide a claim.

Read more »

House Committee Passes Corporate Pardon Bill

Today the House Committee on Education and the Workforce marked up and passed H.R. 2587, which Republicans are calling the "Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act." It might be more accurate to call it the "Corporate Pardon Bill."

Written less than 48 hours before the committee meeting, the bill specifically targets the National Labor Relations Board's ability to sanction corporations that retaliate against workers who have exercised their right to organize.

If passed into law, the bill would prevent the NLRB from regulating the relocation of corporate operations—a crucial regulatory function established by the National Labor Relations Act in 1935. The NLRB's authority to essentially "undo" retaliatory moves by corporations is one of the key ways the agency protects workers' rights and Americans' jobs.

Nearly as troubling as the bill's content is its timing: the bill directly targets ongoing litigation in which the NLRB is suing Boeing for discrimination against unionized workers. The facts of the case are being presented to an administrative law judge, where both Boeing and the workers will be given the opportunity to put forth evidence. The complaint that was registered with NLRB alleges that Boeing moved part of its operation from Washington to South Carolina in retaliation against a strike by workers at the Washington plant. H.R. 2587 becomes law, the NLRB will not be able to sanction Boeing, leaving the Washington workers without any recourse to get their jobs back.

The Democrats on the committee raised several important concerns with the bill. They argued that it would undermine workers’ rights. H.R. 2587 would take away an important remedy workers have when corporations relocate their jobs in order to avoid dealing with unions. Democrats also argued that the bill would take away the NLRB’s ability to keep corporations from sending jobs overseas. Some even questioned whether the bill was worth the committee’s time, asserting that the committee ought to be more focused on creating jobs instead of protecting corporations' ability to unfairly move jobs. Another concern was that the committee ought not to interfere with the ongoing judicial and law-enforcement process by passing this bill; doing so would be a violation of the separation of powers.

Ultimately, the majority-Republican committee voted to favorably report the bill, adding one amendment that changed the wording to clarify Congressional intent. The vote was split along party lines.

Read more »