How soon are we going to realize that we are living in a totalitarian state? The infamous NLRB that Obama has pinned his high hopes on destroying any vestiges of a free state is back at it and wants to condemn businesses from ever moving their business. I was surprised to read at present, the Courts can already mandate a business remain in its present location. And just who is Mr. Griffin?
Richard Griffin, the new general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, wants to give unions a veto over a unionized employer’s decision to relocate. If Griffin has his way, and he most assuredly will, some unionized businesses will be pinned in place at the discretion of their unions.
Mr. Griffin previously served as General Counsel for International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE). He also served on the board of directors for the AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee, a position he held since 1994. Since 1983, he has held a number of leadership positions with IUOE from Assistant House Counsel to Associate General Counsel. From 1985 to 1994, Mr. Griffin served as a member of the board of trustees of the IUOE’s central pension fund.
Unions can contest the employer’s decision, but they have no right to participate in it or otherwise delay it absent a court order enjoining it.
Griffin’s intent was disclosed in a memorandum he sent the agency’s regional directors ordering them not to act on cases presenting issues “of concern” to him — and there were many such issues — without receiving guidance from his office. Griffin’s guidance will be to order an employer to be prosecuted not on the basis of what the law is but on the law as Griffin would like it to be. This will give the board an opportunity to change the law.
Under current law, it is perfectly legal for a unionized employer to relocate some or all of its facilities and eliminate bargaining-unit work if the move is motivated by economic gain — not by a desire to retaliate against employees for their union activities and support. A desire to escape the consequences of unionization, particularly high labor costs, is considered an independent, innocent motivation, not an unlawful one. Big Labor loathes this law; Griffin intends to help unions nullify it.
Under longstanding NLRB law, a unionized employer is not required to bargain with the union over a relocation decision that is motivated by labor-cost savings if the employer determines that bargaining would be futile — that the union could not offer labor-cost savings that could change its decision. Unions can contest the employer’s decision, but they have no right to participate in it or otherwise delay it absent a court order enjoining it.