and pensions will come to order. I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the chair is authorized to call a recess at any time. Today's hearing will examine the policies and priorities of the National Labor Relations Board under the leadership of Chairman James Murphy and General
Counsel Crystal Kerry. The Biden Harris NLRB worked tirelessly to prop up unpopular unions. The Trump NLRB has its work cut out for it and today we will hear how the board is working to fix the damage caused by the previous administration. The NLRB was designed to
be a neutral arbiter of workplace disputes. However, during the Biden Harris administration, the board sided with union leaders, even when doing so meant undermining worker choice. The board's 2023 CMX divi decision expanded
card check organizing and imposed mandatory union recognition certifying unions that never won a vote. The board also restored Obama era policies, including the blocking of charge rules, which often delay votes to remove a union for months or years. Previous
administration's board curtailed employers ability to speak freely with employees about what it means to choose union union representation and limited employers ability to protect employees from discrimination and harassment at
work. The 2024 Amazon.com Services LLC decision overturned 75 years of board president, ruling that is unfair labor practice for an employer to require employees to attend a meeting during which the employer expresses it views on unionization.
The stereial cycle of lean Alstrimer's decision made it harder for employers to discipline employees who use racist, sexist, or sexually explicit language at work. Finally, the Baris Biden Harris board waged an aggressive
campaign to classify more Americans as employees under the National Labor Relations Act. They did so in an effort to increase the number of potential union members in the hopes of funneling additional millions of dollars to union leaders who turn around and funnel that money to the political pri priorities of
the Democratic party. In the view of the previous administration's general counsel and board, graduate students, student athletes, and independent contractors should all be classified as employees organized into unions and required to pay union dues. The Biden
Harris uh board is gone, but general counsel Kerry, Chairman Murphy, and the rest of the board are left to deal with the consequences. During the Biden Harris years, the case backlog tripled upon non-postal employer cases rose uh
open non-postal employer cases rose from 5,900 to the end of 2020 to 17,49 at the end of 2024. Closed cases drop below new filings every year from 2022 to 2024.
Median processing time for closed cases nearly doubled and the informal settlement rate plummeted from 8 8.2% to 3.6%. No matter how hard the board works to reduce its case backlog, it can only decide so many cases while operating
with three members instead of five and adhering to its tradition of overruling precedent only with three votes. I encourage the Senate to confirm President Trump's additional nomine nominees to fill the remaining vac vacancies so the board can quickly reduce the backlog. Chairman Murphy and
General Counsel Kerry, you are the first sitting general counsel and member of the NLRB to appear before the committee in nearly 20 years. I look forward to hearing your plans to address NLRB's challenges and continue protecting the
rights of workers. With that, I yield to the ranking member for your opening statement, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for being here uh in your service. Today's hearing is an important one in many regards as we will discuss
the NLRB, the only federal agency that protects the rights of tens of millions of Americans who work every day and allow them to organize if they choose to have a voice in their workplace. I come to this hearing with a perspective that
both as many of my colleagues know as a former small business owner but also as a former member of our lab labor unions local two in San Francisco unite here many years ago and local 170 of the teamsters in Worcester Massachusetts they wouldn't have got I wouldn't have
got through college without Teamsters 170 in Worcester and I wouldn't have been able to save enough money to open my own business if it wasn't for Local 2 in San Francisco and learn in the restaurant business. I know firsthand the benefits of membership and the power of unions and the power of employees,
whether they be organized or not organized. Right now, unions have overwhelmingly po popular among Americans across party lines. Recent polling suggests that almost 70% of adults approve of unions because Americans know they need a seat at the
table to advocate for their rights in a moment where America has the most concentrated wealth in the history of this country. Similar or or worse than the guilded age. Americans workers need a voice. Today's hearing comes at a time
when CEOs at big companies are taking bigger and bigger checks while workers continue to struggle. Just last week, a new survey found that it would take the median worker 200 years to earn what their CEO earned in a single year. As
opposed to the 50s and 60s when CEO pay was about 30 times the amount of their average worker, now it's in the thousands of times. Unions are critical to fixing our rising inequality by leveling the playing field and empowering workers to collectively
bargain for higher wages, safer workplaces, and better benefits. Despite claiming to support worker pe work working people, the Trump administration has been tipping the scales in favor of billionaires and corporations. Neutrality, I guess, is in
the eyes of the beholder, stripping away organizing rights and shielding bad employers from accountability. Last January, President Trump ordered the unprecedented firing of NLRB member Gwen Wilcox, stripping the NL NLRB of its quorum and preventing it from doing its
vital work. The president has taken repeated and unprecedented action to leverage control over the nonpartisan independent LN NLRB, giving sweetheart deals to his billionaire allies and leaving workers behind in the process.
These attacks combined with a severe staffing shortage at the agency are undermining workers ability to seek recourse for unfair labor practices. There are 90,000 workers for every one NLRB case
worker. Let me repeat that. 90,000 American workers for every one NLRB case worker. Workers are being mistreated. Unions are being undermined by big corporations. And the Trump administration's only response to the
enormous backlog of cases before the NLRB is to recognize them. This is a good step. Workers are their unions and attacking a union is an attack on the workers who make up that union. Forming a union must be a right, not a fight. To
restore workers powers, Congress must pass the Protecting the Right to Organize the PRO Act, fully fund the NLRB, and protect its independence from political influence. Finally, I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from nurses at St.
Mary of Nazareth Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, alleging retaliatory actions by management against the nerkers nurses seeking to recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I obtain yields back. Um, gentleman yields back.
Pursu pursuant to committee rule 8C, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5:00 p.m. 14 days after this hearing. And without objection, the hearing
record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous materials uh noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I will now turn to the introduction of our distinguished witnesses. Our first witness is the
honorable James R. Murphy, chairman of the National Labor Relations Board in Washington DC. Our second witness is the honorable Chris Crystal S. Kerry, general counsel of the NLRB. We thank the witnesses for being here today and we look forward to your
testimony. Pursuit pursuant to committee rules. I would ask that you each limit your oral presentation to a threeminut summary of your written statement. The clock will countd down from three minutes. As committee committee members have many questions for you. However, pursuant to committee rule 8D and
committee practice, we will not cut off your testimony until you reach the 5m minute mark. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. I will first recognize Chairman Murphy for your
testimony. Thank you, Chairman Allen, and good morning to everyone, including uh Ranking Member Donier, and uh I see both uh Chairman uh excuse me, I see that both chairman Wahlberg and Ranking member Scott are here as well. and to
all the committee. Again, thank you for the invitation to testify today. Before President Trump asked me to serve as a board member, then as board chairman, I spent more than 47 years at the NLRB prior to retiring in December 2021. It's a tremendous honor and a somewhat
daunting challenge to return and serve in this new role as agency head. In doing so, I benefit from the knowledge that every day the AY's employees work in the region's nationwide in our headquarters building and they work hard to support us in safeguarding the
statutory rights of parties subject to our jurisdiction. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, my immediate top priority upon taking office is to reduce a case backlog pending review by board members. that backlog significantly increased in
the nearly one-year period when the board lacked the three-member quorum required to decide cases. Consequently, when I and member Scott Mayer were sworn in on January 7th of this year, there were 591 cases pending our review. That
number also greatly exceeded any number of cases in a board level backlog in recent times. I also want to emphasize that I do not view this backlog problem as a partisan issue. I and member mayor have worked collaboratively with our colleague David
Prrowy to address this issue. We have focused on the common initial goal of prioritizing the processing of oldest cases, representation election cases and what I have characterized as lowhanging fruit that is the more uncomplicated
unfairly repracted cases before us. I'm pleased to say that by the end of last week, the board has reduced the overall number of pending cases from 591 to 387. It has done so in spite of the fact that 152 newly arrived cases were assigned,
meaning that we have actually disposed of 352 cases in a five-month period. This production is unprecedented in recent times. I note that there have been very few dissents in the decisions issued so far. Part of the reason for that is, as mentioned, obviously
attributable to repeated statements by me and member mayor, that we will continue to adhere to the long-standing nonpartisan board tradition requiring a three member majority to overrule existing president. I'm sure that many of you have questions about certain recent decisions. I will answer your
questions to the best of my limited ability to do so, noting in advance that I cannot comment with any specificity about any case actually pending or about issues that are most likely to be raised in upcoming cases. I must avoid even arguably suggesting prejudgment that
would require my recusal from participation in a case. My goal is straightforward. To promote a board that works efficiently, expeditiously, and in a way that earns the confidence of employees, employers, and unions.
Doing so will best fulfill our commitment to protecting the statutory rights of each while ensuring that our administrative agency processes are cost-effective and accountable. I look forward to working with the subcommittee on these priorities. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I
welcome your questions. Uh, thank you, Chairman Murphy. U I, I now recognize general counsel Kerry for your testimony. >> Good morning, Chairman Allen, Ranking Member Donier, and the committee members. Thank you for having me here.
It is my duty and that of anyone serving as general counsel to protect workers rights by investigating unfair labor practice charges and making determinations on them promptly. Otherwise, we are not effectuating the National Labor Relation Act as intended.
The backlog we face today prevents us from fulfilling our mission. Therefore, my chief priority as general counsel is to address the backlog and implement sustainable operational and case handling measures to ensure cases are addressed in a timely fashion going
forward. I am grateful to be here today to share where we stand, how we got here, and what we're doing to reduce the average length of time that a case is open before a decision is made on its merits. What I have realized in my first five months on the job is that the
previous administration placed a greater emphasis on reversing established precedent than on improving operational efficiency and providing timely responses to parties before the NLRB. The focus on overturning long-standing precedent without a similar focus on how
to process cases in conditions that deteriorated for our board agents every day combined with decreased staffing led to the historic backlog that I walked into on day one. Beginning that day, we initiated a comprehensive review
beginning with efforts to enhance case handling, conduct investigations more efficiently and minimize delays and acquiring initial evidence from involved parties. Our dedicated employees have been working full throttle to get our house in order. I'm proud to share that
since I took office, despite underst staffing, our incredible employees have completed the investigation of 7,66 cases that were pending as of January 7th, a nearly 40% reduction in cases that were awaiting determination in a regional office when I was sworn in.
Moreover, between January 7th and June 2nd of this year, we've processed 13,06 cases versus 12,491 new filings, a reduction of the backlog by 550 cases, about 108 a month. We're also
proud to have closed or completed investigations in 4,100 legacy cases, those filed between 21 and 24. And case movement across the agency has also been high with 8,500 ULP cases closed, investigations closed, and 3,300 other
cases and,00 employee representation cases closed. We also continued to work on more current cases filed between 25 and 26, processing more than 7,400 cases in that time period. As part of this plan, I recently implemented an initi an
initiative to redistribute 3,500 cases among regional offices. In less than a month, the investigations in 281 of those cases have been completed. Well, as you can see, we are attacking the backlog from multiple angles, and I'm sure I'll have more questions on that today. I am optimistic about our
progress in the future, but it's important to note that the situation was not created overnight. The backlog accumulated over a period of several years escalating to unprecedented levels between 2021 and 2025 and it will take some time to fully reign in this
backlog. Additionally, we continue to receive new charges every day at a record play pace and all while we are 43% understaffed compared to where we are 10 years. We're excited to have hiring authority to hire nearly 100 new employees this fiscal year. However,
that number does not approach the number of employees we need. Before closing, I would be remiss in not pointing out that I learned this morning that despite OM proposing 285 million for the AY's fiscal year budget, fiscal year 27, the House Appropriations Bill introduced an
initial proposed budget of only 200 million, which is far below what we'll need and would require a reduction in full-time employees from between 300 and 460 full-time employees. I hope that the information that we can provide to you
today will encourage you to speak to your colleagues on the appropriations committee and advocate for our agency, for our employees, and for workers who depend on us to resolve their workplace disputes. I look forward to your questions.
>> Thank you, General Counsel Kerry, for your testimony. Under committee rule nine, we will now question the witnesses under the fiveminute rule. I will recognize myself for five minutes. Mrs. Kerry, with your background in both the private sector
and the NLRB, you have a unique perspective on the timeline of labor negotiations, what are the primary factors and complexities that influence the time it takes for an employer and a union to reach their first contract? >> Thank you for the question.
Every case is different. Every company is different. Every bargaining unit is different. So I don't think there is one single factor that would influence the time it takes for a collective bargaining agreement to be reached in an initial contract. From my perspective
and from my experience, I can tell you that there are many things that come into play after a unit is certified or voluntarily recognized by an employer. that includes extensive requests for information relating to the specific employer, the industry, the business,
the wants, the needs of the employees in the union. Um those take time to respond to and we need to provide times for the union also to put together their proposal. So in terms of complexity, every every single bargaining unit and every negotiation is going to be
different. Uh what are the most effective strategies or frameworks for ensuring that the statutory obligation to bargain in good faith leads to a timely finalized first contract? >> I mean from a pract practical standpoint
it means parties talking to each other and collaborating with each other and answering each other's requests for information which can go both ways. Um, it also requires that, you know, when a charge is brought to us alleging that there is some type of bad ba bargaining, that there's surface bargaining, that
there's regressive bargaining, that we have the capability in terms of staffing, and and we have the, you know, the runway to be able to investigate those cases in a quicker manner so that we can get results. the outcome of an unfair labor practice case and alleging bad faith bargaining can have an impact
on many many decisions in bargaining but also can result in things you know in the event that there's a strike depending on whether there's an unfair labor practice or not involved can also impact whether or not replacements can be used and what types of replacements. So, the ability of the general counsel's
office and our field office to be able to make a timely decision on any unfair labor practices alleging bad faith bargaining is crucial. >> Thank you. Uh, Chairman Murphy, the board has a tradition of requiring three votes to reverse precedent and you have signaled your intention to keep this
tradition. Could you elaborate on this? Elaborate on this tradition. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned, it's a long-standing tradition. I have checked and I've found no aberration from that particular tradition since the passage of the uh draftartley amendments in 1947. Uh it is not statutoily
required. Uh but I think implicit in the expansion of the board from three to five members which permitted the board to decide routine cases on a three-member basis, a subpanel basis as we call it. uh implicit in that is the notion that the board as a body of a
whole should overrule president and that body of a whole would be three members regardless of whether there are actually five city members. >> Thank you. Um Chair Murphy, since the time the board reached a quorum this year, you have been making steady progress in processing cases. In the
past five months alone, the board has issued over 200 decisions. There have been prior years when the board only issued 240 decisions. Will you talk about the urgency of confirming additional board members and what is the cost in concrete terms of continued
vacancies to the workers and employers awaiting resolution of labor disputes? Again, as I made a reference to the five member system where there would be sub panels where only three board members would be disposing of routine cases and the other one or two board members would
be simply noting off at the end unless they wish to participate. Uh so the an additional board member uh in this case nominee uh Jim Macy, it would be advantageous to have him present. uh understanding that any board member including myself who arrives at the board does have to go through a learning
curve and to get acquainted with staff. But the sooner the better that we get uh reinforcements if you will uh the better I think we will be able to process the additional still much too high backlog that we have confirmed with. >> Good. Well, thank you for your work and
uh now I will call on Mrs. Lee from Pennsylvania for your five minutes of questioning. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This administration has waged unconscionable attacks on workers. Our federal workers were illegally fired.
Our VA workers had their collective bargaining agreements terminated. Our teachers are being accused of indoctrinating kids. Our healthcare workers are being blamed for the failures of corporate monopolies. Our country can only be great when our workers are supported. And the NRB has a
duty to make things right for workers in our country. I represent a district in southwestern Pennsylvania that knows firsthand how important the NLRB is. It backed up the steel workers in the 1930s and the Pittsburgh Post Gazette workers during one of the longest strikes in
recent history. But when Trump removed Gwen Wilcox from the NRB, it stripped the board of a quorum for almost an entire year. And that left workers livelihoods in the balance. corporate monopolies in my district and across the country immediately capitalized on the
lack of a quorum to try to prevent workers from unionizing. The Trump administration has repeatedly defied the uh National Labor Relations Act and other legal precedent to undermine the NRB's independence. So now that you finally have a quorum, my constituents
need the NRB to do its job, which cannot happen if you're not acting as an independent agency. Mr. Mr. Murphy, do you agree that the NLRB must be an independent agency? >> I agree that the board traditionally has been an independent agency. It continues
to be an independent agency. I can assure you that I have had no conversations with the White House involving specific policy matters or involving any specific case. Uh there is >> you do believe that it must remain. >> But as we all know, there is a pending
Supreme Court case involving the discharge. But my question is is do you agree that the NRB must remain an independent agency? I would like to know how >> original matter. Yes. Consider it. Thank you. Uh thank you. So right after leaving the NRB without a quorum, Trump issued executive order, you know, 14215,
which made it clear he wants to assert full control over all independent regulatory agencies. One provision in that executive order was for the NRB to have a White House uh liaison on staff. Um, does the NRB currently have a White
House liaison? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> So, since you believe that the NRB should be an independent agency, will you oppose the creation of a White House liaison position? >> I will certainly discuss it if the president orders that uh somebody to come to our office as a White House
liaison. I'm not sure what position I would be in to oppose that other than to u resign. >> Okay. Being an independent agency is the core of the NRB's ability to protect workers.
But we know that calling the NLRB unconstitutional uh is a standard tactic routinely used by Trump's friends at corporations like Amazon, SpaceX, uh to union bus. Miss Carrie, your former law firm, Morgan Lewis, represented some of these corporations and arguing that the NLRB
is unconstitutional. Morgan Lewis paved the way for some of the most radical challenges to the NLRB that functionally killed workers rights to organize in several states across the country. Now you're making the same arguments that the NLRB is unconstitutional while serving as it general counsel. Um, Miss
Carrie, how can workers in my district trust you to protect their right to unionize over the interests of corporations you've helped to union bus? I'm actually a little confused on why you think that I continue in this role to make arguments that the LRB is unconstitutional. So, do you have
information to share with me on where and when I've made those arguments? >> Your past work? >> You said now I continue to make those arguments. That is untrue. >> Okay. So, you don't believe it's unconstitutional. You've changed your stance. >> I am. I I never took that position. Just because the law firm I work with
represented clients that took it does not mean that I took that position. Do you share the do you share the sentiment of the law firms you work for? >> I believe that in the role that I am serving in today, I have enforced board orders and have argued for the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act >> and you believe that workers can trust your that you will protect their right
to organize because what my question was is how can they trust that? Ma'am, I think that everything that I just talked about in my opening statement and the directives that I've given regional directors to process cases, to get cases moving, the fact that we've transferred cases to regions that have more ability
to get to cases on a faster basis and to get answers to workers. Yes, I absolutely think workers can trust me to get answers to the questions that they bring to us in a much quicker manner than my predecessor did. >> Thanks. And I hope that that is the case because workers are depending on this.
Every worker in this country has a right to a safe environment, fair pay, healthcare, and leave care unions and collective bargainings are workers best shots at having those enforced. Um, so I will continue to stand up to the agency uh who are supposed to be backing workers. I hope that we can expect that
you will join us in that support and workers are relying on you keeping your word today. I thank you so much for your time and I yield back. >> Gentle lady yields. And now call on our chairman of the full committee, Mr. Wahberg for his five minutes of questioning. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the panel for being here. Uh, Mr. Murphy
in the 1970 case of HK Porter versus NLRB. Uh the Supreme Court said about collective bargaining and and I quote, "It was recognized from the beginning that agreement might in some cases be impossible and it was never intended that the government would in such cases
step in, become a party to the negotiations and impose its own views of a desirable settlement." End quote. Do you agree with this statement about the government's role in collective bargaining? >> I do. Um, and in fact, we are obliged to
follow that particular Supreme Court edict. >> How important then is it for workers to be able to vote on a contract? >> It's not statutoily required. It can be required as a consequence of parties agreeing at the beginning of negotiations to do so, or it can also be
required if it's something in the union's bylaws that the employer is aware of. Uh I I really don't have any personal experience as to whether or not it's important in in any particular instance for to have those votes. I do think that the easiest thing to do is
have the parties at the bargaining table to have full authority to conclude a collective bargaining agreement. >> Certainly parties ought to be involved, shouldn't they? They should be. >> You would hope that the sides would be heard. As a former steel worker myself, um I understand that uh some of my my
conditions were far better than my father's as a result of negotiations that went on between parties. Thank you. Uh Miss Kerry, your predecessor used the general counsel's enforcement discretion almost exclusively in ways that advanced um union organizing. How are you
exercising enforcement discretion differently? >> Thank you for the question. We have reiterated to the regions that all cases regardless of whether they were filed by an individual, by a union, um against an employer, by an employer, um should be
investigated fairly and efficiently and consistently regardless of who the parties are that are involved. Uh are there categories of cases such as uh charges filed by workers against unions that you believe were downgraded
under prior leadership and that deserve more attention today? >> Unfortunately, I think that those cases were not processed as quickly as they should have been and were potentially categorized behind cases that involve charges against employers,
>> judging by the backlog. >> Correct. >> Um thank you, Mr. Murphy. The Biden Harris Board's decision in the Amazon captive audience case prohibited employers from holding meetings at which they express views on unionization. However, as I believe you know, the
Supreme Court, prior boards, and the text of the National Labor Relations Act explicitly protect employer speech. How do you square this decision with wellestablished free speech rights of employers? We are likely, if we do not already,
have cases involving that particular uh prior board decision pending before us. So that I cannot specifically comment about it. But you're absolutely right, sir, that the act through section 8C incorporates the concept of first amendment protections for employee
speech for employer speech. >> Employer and employee speech. >> Employee speech. Absolutely. >> Uh how might a full board be able to ensure that employer free speech rights are protected going forward? As I've mentioned, we have our tradition that it takes three board members to overrule
particular presidents. Uh are theoretically uh an additional board member would could make a could create a majority to overrule that particular president that you raised. >> The wisdom of a majority. >> That's correct, sir. Okay. Thank you. I
yield back. The chairman yields. I now call on Mr. Manion of New York for your five minutes of questioning. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh thank you to both of you uh for being here today. Obviously, the positions you hold are uh very important as chair and general
counsel of the board uh to the working people of this country and I thank you both for your service. Uh, as you may know, or as you know, excuse me, when workers choose to organize and advocate for themselves, time and again, they face the same obstacles, which could be
threats, retaliation, endless delays, and sometimes even closure of an entire job site, which did occur in my district. These anti-UN tactics have been tried uh all across the country, including in NY22, and I've seen them
play out firsthand. It's exactly why, as the chairman stated, we need a fair, well functioning, and nonpartisan NLRB to protect workers rights and ensure that unfair labor practices are fully
investigated and remedied. The last year has been a turbulent one. Um, shortly after the president took office, he took the hostile and unprecedented action of firing board member Gwen Wilcox, leaving the board
without a quorum for nearly an entire year. Not only did this limit NLRB's operations, but it also threatened the agency's independence. um case logs, backlogs of cases did exist and I appreciate the
acknowledgement and also the acknowledgement that after the Trump uh administration occurred the second time that not having a quorum did also contribute to those backlogs of cases.
Um certainly that worsened the problem and some employers clearly took advantage of the situation by appealing cases to a board that could not function without a quorum, leaving workers with little recourse and undermining their
organization uh their organizing efforts. So as we move forward, there's a lot of work to ensure that cases and election petitions are processed quickly. I appreciate that in both of your testimonies today, you indicated that addressing backlogs is a
priority and substantial um improvements have been made in reducing those backlogs. We can find agreement there, but uh I do want to address that how we are reducing uh
these backlogs um making that number go down significantly. uh we should always assure that workers rights are of the highest priority. So my questions are for you Miss Carrie. Um in response to this issue, your written
testimony states that you are seeking reasonable settlements on pending cases. Given uh what we've seen so far, I do have some concerns about what that looks like. In the past five months, your office has given Amazon a bailout and
one of the most consequential cases before the agency and let SpaceX off the hook for enforcement from enforcement by the NLRB. Um, so that being said, historically across past administrations, the NLRB operated by a
rule of thumb that any settlement less than 80% of the total back pay owed was unacceptable. So, can you address how you're abiding by or not abiding by that traditional practice? >> Thank you. The settlement process is
really something that's incredibly important to be able to resolve a majority of these cases that are pending in our backlog list. My predecessor, as you I don't think you mentioned, but there were some constraints um that were placed on regions and parties to engage in settlement discussions regarding
pending unfair labor practices. So the 80% threshold that you discuss was thrown out the window. Anything that was less than 100% plus additional remedies that I would define as extraordinary and quite frankly that's not just me. That's what the board and the courts have said
in relation to those types of remedies. She saw it as well prevented parties from being able to engage in meaningful settlement discussions. So I have told every regional office that I have visited and I have several more to visit and I've enjoyed those visits. I don't start at 80% of anything. Those who have
negotiated across the table from me can confirm I start at 100% plus when we're negotiating settlements. However, the guidance that I have given and I think this is consistent with the statute and what we are supposed to do to enforce the National Labor Relations Act is to
encourage parties to discuss and work out resolutions that are good for them. The majority of our settlements are bilateral settlement agreements. That means the charging party and the charge party have agreed on the terms of the
settlement. You mentioned one of two unilateral settlements that my office has accepted. >> Thank you. >> Understood. Is there when those two parties are engaging in these settlements, do you intervene in making sure there is a a floor a minimum
threshold for that settlement? Oh, am I over? Thank you, Mr. Chair. The gentleman yields. And now I call on our chairman emeritus, Dr. Fox, North Carolina for your line. Five minutes of questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Miss Kerry, in the case communications workers of America, vbeck Supreme Court held that non-members of a union cannot be required to pay for union political expenses to keep their jobs. But unions are automatically seizing money for
politics from non-members unless they object and jump through union created hoops. Would it not be more consistent with the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act and the principles articulated in Supreme Court decisions such as Beck for unions to collect funds
for political activities from non-members only when those individuals have affirmatively consisted consented, excuse me, to paying for such expenses. This is a really important issue and it's something that my office has
actually received oral argument on since being sworn in in January. It's definitely an issue that we see repeated and we see issues come up constantly with this exact, you know, issue of whether you have to opt in, opt out is basically what we've heard some questions about. I think that the
proposals that you've given um would be really great options. I do think that given the historic backlog and the way that cases are being processed, it would take a long time to come up with that type of resolution. My hope is that we can encourage parties through a different method to to be clearer
upfront on what options are are available to employees. Whether that's at the time that they're initiating into a new employer, if it's a time in which they have a certification where employees basically have the availability to see what options are available. Do they want to be a full
member? Do they want to be a non-payer? What are what is it? I've I've and and I've analogized to what it looks like when I get my Costco membership renewal form every year. And it's do you want to be a platinum member, a gold member, a bronze member? And you know, these are the benefits that that come with each of those levels of membership. And I think
providing that clarity to employees upfront and providing them that information would help us in terms of reducing the number of cases that come before us. But most importantly, it provides employees with clarity as to what they are agreeing to, what they are
getting in result and in response to their selection. And I hope that in the end, you know, we are able to work out and provide some guidance that we think are completely in line with long-standing law on relation to Beck and the window periods and all of those
types of issues that come with that. But I think that information upfront for employees is what's most critical. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. Under former general counsel of Brutus, the Biden Harris NLRB tried to overturn 100 years worth of presidents, including
many that were established or reaffirmed on a bipartisan basis across dozens of doctrinal areas. The practical consequences was that regional offices, administrative law judges, and the board itself were consumed by grappling with
novel, aggressive legal theories rather than resolving the ordinary disputes that workers and employers brought to the agency. In your assessment, how much of the AY's current case load challenge is it attributable to the deliberate
allocation of resources away from retail cases resolution and toward ideological agenda setting. >> I don't have any detailed information to answer that question with respect to the impact on the board case load and I have no information at all with respect to
the impact on regional operations based on my long-standing experience at the agency. However, whenever the board is considering overruling significant precedent, it takes time and staff council away from working on regular cases. With a progressive overall reduction in staff members in the recent
years, there's a greater likelihood of an adverse impact on overall productivity. Having said that, I want to emphasize that the massive case backlog currently pending at the board when I arrived was far more attributable, I think, to the loss of quorum than to any other issue.
So, I'm assuming then the confirmation of another board member could help you clear the case backlog. >> I certainly hope so. >> Miss Carrie, when you took office in January, the non postal employer docket carried roughly 16,000 open unfair labor
practice charges, more than half of them over a year old. Before general counsel of Bruto's era, the agency maintained a stable inventory of appro roughly 5,800 to 6,000 open charges. Can you explain what you found when you arrived and what
your assessment is of how long it will take to return the board to pre2021 inventory levels at the current rate of closure? >> I found a mess quite frankly. Um there were so many cases that were prioritized
to be sent to advice because the former general counsel wanted to overturn president that cases were being stalled out in regions repeatedly. That combined with as you mentioned the reduction in staffing has really has has really hit hard in the regions and and our ability
to impact the regional um decision-making process. So even with all of the uh you know enhancements that we're putting in place, if we remain at the same staffing levels, it will be years before we are able to clear the backlog. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our witnesses.
>> Gentle lady yields. And now call Mr. Conno from California for your five minutes of question. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um Miss Kerry, under the National Labor Relations Act, what rights do workers have under section 8? under section 8.
>> Well, section 8 would discuss the things in terms of unfair labor practices that may may occur. So, they have the right to file charges alleging that the employer has violated the National Labor Relations Act or that the union has engaged in things like failure to represent them in their duty of fair representation.
>> Okay. So, both in terms of um let's say inaction or adverse action by the employer or the union. Um uh let's say an employee is fired for trying to organize a union in their workplace. Something that I'm sure you've seen during your time at the NRB. You're
nodding. Um uh can an employee file a lawsuit themselves if they are harmed by an unfair labor practice, which this would probably constitute? >> Yes, they can. >> Um uh how can a worker seek recourse if they're unlawfully fired?
>> So, they have a number of options. Obviously, um, before us, they would be able to contact an information officer. They could come into a local office or go online and file an unfair labor practice charge. Sometimes it's really helpful for workers to reach out. And I encourage that to talk to our field staff in the information office so that
they can help walk them through the charge filing process to make sure that they're identifying critically in the charge itself the specific unfair labor practices that they're alleging have occurred. >> Okay. Well, under the National Labor Relations Act, workers cannot file an unfair labor practice claim through
private right of action. Do I understand that right? >> That's correct. >> Yes. So, the NRB is the only way they can seek a solution >> unless there's other allegations of discriminatory conduct. Um, depending on um the type of work that they have, they may be able to have a state claim as
well. >> But discriminatory conduct is is a different thing than an unfair labor practice, right? >> Correct. if you're talking specifically about an unfair labor practice. >> Okay. So, the NRB is again the under the law is the only way they can seek a solution. They can't go through a
private right of action. They can't sue um by themselves in the court. They have to go through the NRB. >> Not specifically for an unfair labor practice. >> Yeah. For for unfair labor practice. That's what we're talking about, which is a big thing. It's a it's a it's a wide c it's a there's a lot of stuff that can happen. That means that when
there is a backlog of cases, uh, workers are getting no recourse when it comes to unfair labor practice, right? >> I mean, it does delay. >> Well, they're getting no recourse at that point because they can't go to the courts. They have to go to the NRB. And
so, when the LRB has been like unable to process these cases because of the lack of a quorum, that's a problem for the workers, not for the employer. Um, certainly it's for the law unions that represent them, right? That's correct. So I I just want to clarify. So I think
the lack of quorum in relation to cases that are backlogged before the board is a little different because that does not prevent the regional offices from still conducting a fair labor. >> So that's where I want to go next. In 2023, there was approximately one full-time NRB employee for every 90,000
workers under jurisdiction. Is this enough staff to process the number of claims that you receive or even to address the backlog? Well, I mean based on the opening testimony, absolutely not. >> Okay. Thank you. That's a very frank answer. Um how many delays how um how
have delays in case resolution impacted u American workers confidence that the government will protect their right to organize. >> Yeah. I mean, as I said in my opening statement, I don't think we're fulfilling our mission if we're not timely getting responses. >> So So you're not fulfilling the mission. Um and I get and and and I think the
staffing has something to do with it. Over the last 20 years, regional offices have lost 50% of their staff while unfair labor practice and union represent cases union representation cases have skyrocketed over the last few years. Do you believe the NRB needs more funding and staff to carry out its
responsibilities in a timely manner? >> I think if we want to hit the backlog that we need to to get resolution to the American workers, yes. >> Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your answer. How much funding and staff does the agency need to process cases and election petitions in a timely manner, do you think?
Well, I'm not sure that I've done a complete look. You can get back to me. I think I'll get back to you on that one. This is a big deal that you've said that you need more staff. >> It is. >> Um, President Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's vicious campaign to gut the federal workforce slashed NRB's workforce by 10% in 2025 alone.
>> I understand that the NRB recently posted a series of job openings. How many positions is the administration allowing you to hire? >> I believe we've posted for approximately a 100 vacancies so far. so far and I believe we're up into realm 167 total.
>> So I still think that's a fraction of what you need. Um what else are you doing to ensure that the NRB can continue to hire staff? >> So I mean we obviously are working on the first budget that Jim and I have actual input into which is FY28. Um we are, you know, reviewing and providing
input on the OM budget for FY27. And as I said in my opening statement, you know, unfortunately the House Appropriations Bill that was put forth in the first proposal is 74 84 million less than what OM proposed for the board. So we're hoping that being here today and answering your questions,
you'll reach out to your colleagues to encourage more funding for us. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back and I I I see our witnesses are our very own Trump appointees are saying that we need more staffing at the NRB. Thank you. to question.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Murphy, General Counsel Kerry, thank you for being here with us today. As you both know, the NR NLA states that if a union can recruit 30% of employees in a particular workplace to sign
authorization forms stating that they wish to be represented by a union, then the NRLB verifies the forms and orders a secret ballot election. The NRLA goes on to say that a majority of the workplaces eligible employees must vote yes to have
a union represent them in collective bargaining negotiations. However, the statute's vagueness on the term majority allows these elections to be decided uh based on the number of votes cast no matter how many eligible employees participate in the election.
This can lead to absurd situations such as the unionization election at the Virginia defense contractor Keraros International. Only one worker out of eight who were eligible voted to give union control of all of the
workers. A similar situation happened in Washington DC at the security firm Securdi. Only one worker out of seven who were eligible voted giving the union control of the whole workplace. uh union organizers can easily abuse
this system, focusing on a small number of workers to ensure a union victory. Trader Joe's employee uh Michael Alhorn testified before Congress that quote after an organizer realized I wasn't on board, they they told me that they couldn't answer any more questions and
that and and that they were going to devote their attention to those workers who would be with them and help them win. This is not workplace democracy. Uh, Chairman Murphy, do you think this is problematic that only one worker can unionize a workplace?
>> I assume that this is not a case pending before me. Uh, >> no. No, it is not. I It It's concerning. I think it's an aberration. I'm not familiar with many cases at all that have presented that drastic, you know, minority of of votes being cast. But
you're absolutely right. The more voters prefer, the better it is. And that's one reason why we have a preference for in-person manual ballot elections because we have the highest participation rate. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. Um, thank you Mr. Murphy. That is why I introduced the
worker infranchise infranchisement act. My bill would provide for workplace democracy by mandating a twothirds quorum of eligible employees to be present in a unionization election in order for those results to be deemed
valid. If a twothirds quorum is not present, then the election would be deemed invalid. With a twothirds quorum, still 84% of unions that won in September 2024 would have been valid. Um, this I believe is a reasonable
reform that can ensure that all employees have a voice in workplace unionization elections. Um, unfortunately, the Biden Harris era NRLB made this lack of workplace democracy problem even worse. Under the board's
SIMX decision, an employer can be ordered to bargain with a union even in the absence of a majority vote in a secret ballot election. Um, the Biden board decided that an election result could be jettisoned based on an unfair
an alleged unfair labor practice during the organizing campaign. Thankfully, the Sixth Circuit of Court of Appeals struck down the SIMX within the Sixth Circuit uh jurisdiction. I believe it should be struck down nationwide. Uh, Miss Carrie,
given the uh, serious consequences of issuing bargaining orders, what steps is your office taking to ensure that bargaining orders are rarely issued, narrowly applied, and issued with clear standards? >> Thank you. Well, I would argue generally speaking that bargaining orders are a
rare occurrence. They are to be withheld for the most serious and egregious violations in relation to um, election conduct. So I believe that even before the prior board took the in steps to you know move to the sek standard there were already board cases in place that had
been in place for over 80 years quite frankly and had resulted in a number of rerun elections. So what we are doing is we are investigating cases to the extent that they come before us in relation to um election misconduct and we are um
evaluating those under the standards of the current law. So to be clear in SIMX, there was no specificity in relation to specifically what type of unfair labor practice would result in a SIMX bargaining order. So there is discretion when we are reviewing unfair labor practices to determine whether or not a
SIMX would be appropriate. >> Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. >> Gentleman yields. And now I'll call on uh Miss McBath from Georgia for your five minutes of questioning. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for uh visiting with us today to our witnesses.
Uh, Miss Kerry, before becoming general counsel at the National Labor Relations Board, you were employed as a partner at the law firm Morgan Lewis for just under eight years. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And does Morgan Lewis represent both employees and management in
employment and labor or does the firm specifically represent management at corporations involved in labor disputes? >> Um, no. It is a full-ervice firm. >> Okay. Thank you. Now, do you think that your previous multi-year
employment as a high level partner at a law firm representing only corporations makes you biased against workers when making decisions in unfair labor practices? >> No, I do not. You
may think so, but it is clear that many Americans will find it impossible to believe that your previous work would not make you biased in favor of corporations over regular people when making these decisions. Under President Trump, the federal government has only
become even more of a payto-play scheme for the most powerful people and entities in our country to avoid being held accountable for violating the law and people's rights. Miss Carrie, since you were sworn in as
councel general, have you or anyone in your office even been contacted by phone or email about an active NLRB case by anyone representing a company or by the company themselves? >> I mean, we receive contact from unions
and companies consistently about pending cases. >> Okay. So, all right. So then, has the White House or political appointee at a different federal agency contacted
you or your office about a specific NLRB case to request that a specific action be taken in favor of a company or over a worker? >> No. >> Okay, that's good to hear and I hope you continue to do that. There's absolutely
no reason that you should be resolving cases in favor of a certain party just because you received a call from the company itself or from the president. These cases are already stacked against our workers because of the power
imbalance between a boss and a subordinate. And make no mistake that Republicans in Washington are not pro- union and they're not proworker. Democrats used our majority to save the hard-earned union pensions of over 1.2
million Americans, literally preventing people from having to go back to work in their old age and helping them to enjoy their retirement. Republicans re they used their majority during President Trump's first term to
change the law to prevent union workers from being able to write their dues off on their taxes. And so the difference couldn't be much clearer. Regardless of how hostile to unions this president and the majority may be, the first section of the
National Labor Relations Act clearly states that it is, and I'm quoting, the policy of the United States to encourage the practice of collective bargaining and freedom of association, end quote. But that is the exact
opposite of what we're seeing from this president and House Republicans. And I yield. >> Thank you. I now recognize my friend from Florida, Mr. Fine. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, the NLRB is supposed to be a neutral
arbiter. It's not supposed to be an advocate for businesses. And it's not contrary to I think what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe. It's not supposed to be an advocate for labor. It's supposed to be a mediator in the middle to ensure
fairness. But I think we saw as we saw in many instances under Joe Biden and Kla Harris, government weaponized for approaches that were simply not appropriate. Um Mr. Murphy, the the Biden Harris board's stereocycle and
lion elastimemers decisions effectively prohibited employers from enforcing standard policies requiring respectful conduct and barred employers from disciplining employees for racist, sexist, and bigoted language used during protected activities. So, I want to be
clear. Joe Biden's NLRB encouraged and allowed racists, sexists, and those engaging in other discriminatory behavior. Took their side, put the finger on the scale for the worst imaginable people. Joe Biden,
pro-racist. How would those decisions conflict in your view with Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act? I think the board is obligated to take in into consideration the protections afforded by title 7 and I'm aware of the
the cases that you mentioned we have similar cases involving those presidents so I can't speak speak specifically beyond that. So, you disagree with Joe Biden and Kla Harris's pro-racist, pro-sexist policies that they pushed forward, you know, when in those decisions at the time?
>> I I didn't say that exactly, sir, but I would like to consider reconsider if the opportunity arises whether those cases were correctly decided. >> So, so how might the board be able to take swift action to resolve these employee conduct cases? >> The issue has to be raised in an unfair
labor practice case before us. And uh if we were to overrule president, as I've said several times during this hearing, it would require a three-member majority. >> Okay. Um changing topics. Miss Kerry, you've declined to issue any new mandatory submission requirements for cases. It's an unprecedented step that
you've described as deliberately allowing regions to resolve cases without creating a bottleneck at the NLRB headquarters. Now, I can understand reasons to do that, staffing and and things like that, but can you explain really why you made that decision? And more importantly, what oversight
mechanisms have you put in place to ensure regional consistency and quality without centralized casebyase clearance? To be clear, we don't want people in one part of the country thinking the NLRB does things one way and another part. It should be standard across the board. So
why did you do this and what have you made done to make sure that there is consistency across the board? >> Yeah. So I've actually been a little shocked at the push back that I've got from both sides on the failure or the refusal to issue this mandatory submissions advice um memorandum. I did
it for the reasons I stated in the memo um where I said I was not going to issue one and it is very much so because the backlog of cases that our regional offices are facing the procedural so >> it's a resource issue. Okay. It is a resource issue and >> I'll grant that. I'll grant that that's
your argument. So what are you going to do to make sure that in Florida that region I'm confident they'll do the right thing because it's Florida versus New York or California where I'm fairly confident they'll do the wrong thing. So like what are you h how do you make sure
that there's one set of standards? >> Well, I disagree. I think all of our field offices would have a consistent outcome regardless of what state they're in. So >> beyond your beyond your confidence, >> I'm going to answer your question. So in relation to what we're doing is we have a division called operations in
headquarters and they are in constant contact with each of their districts which contains a certain amount of regional offices. We have direct conversations with operations and I have been in significant number of field offices so far and have held all field staff calls where I message my points of
view on specific cases and on specific case handling methodology. So in order of consistency, I don't have time to look at 18,000 cases. And if we want to get through the backlog, I have to trust my people and I do trust them that they are doing the right thing, which is what I have instructed them to do in relation
to the cases. We do have a number of the cases that would have been included on the mandatory submissions advice memo, which quite frankly I'd written for over a year as my nomination was pending and I just never issued it. But we have all of those cases that are pending before the board. So Jim keeps saying if we
have the opportunity to review them, my my opinion and position on Sterycle is out there before him pending. My position out there on Amazon is out there impending. My position on Siren is out there pending. My position on Hospital Metropolitano is out there and pending. So those cases we are able to
find internally through the use of our operational resources and not place an additional burden on our regional offices to have to write lengthy memos to submit to the division of advice. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you. Now I'd like to recognize my friend from Virginia, Miss Scott.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. U Mr. Murphy, I understand you've been at the board for 47 years. >> That's correct. Before I retired, now I've unretired, so I'm running the clock again. >> And you served as um chief of staff of
three board chairs. >> Chief counsel. >> Chief counsel, three board chairs. Uh >> yes. Was at least one of them appointed by a Democrat? >> None of those three were. I've have worked I have worked on the staff. >> One was appointed in 2010.
>> Is that correct? Okay. I apologize. Um >> so he would have been appointed >> Oh, I I there was a misunderstanding there. I haven't worked for three board chairs. I worked for three board members, all of whom were Republicans. Uh but prior to that I have uh at many
times been working on the staffs of a a a board member who was a a Democrat. >> You can have a Republican that was appointed by a Democrat. >> That is correct. In fact, we need one. >> Um and I mean that's the
law requires appointment of Democrats and Republicans. President Democratic president would have appointed >> perhaps some Republicans, right? >> Okay. Um, is the mission still at the NLRB to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining?
>> Absolutely. It's statutoily required. It's a priority. >> Okay. Um, Miss Kerry, for the record, what would you do with the additional money that you've requested that it would be difficult to do do without the additional money you're requesting? >> Hire additional staff. Implement
training resources for all of our new staff and our existing CA staff on efficient case handling methods. Um the we've frequently talked about backlog of cases in general. What kinds of cases are in the backlog and how long
is that backlog? >> Um every kind of case you can think of is in the backlog. Um there's cases involving work rules, there's cases involving discharges, there's cases involving bargaining, organizing, duties of fair representation, failure to
provide information. Um, you know, we currently have uh around 18,000 cases that are pending in the investigatory stage. >> And you've uh pointed out that you need additional staff so you can get to them more quickly. And you've
pointed out that the workers have no private right of action. So, they have to wait for the NLRB to decide the case. They can't go to court on their own. Is that right? >> Correct. um you have to facilitate the backlog
and developed a strategy to distribute cases to other offices. Some of us think this might be actually ineffective because the new office would have to investigate it and if they find merit it has to come back to the original office. They have to start all over again. Uh we've written you a
letter to um respond to in detail on that. So we'll just wait for the response on that one. um complaint we frequently hear is that there's no meaningful deterrent to discourage employers from committing unfair labor
practices. For example, if an employer fires somebody illegally for trying to organize a union, what kinds of penalties and sanctions can you impose? >> Reinstatement um of that employee. we can seek back pay and other um
compensatory damages related to um you know when they were out of work work for look for look for job um resources things like that. >> Um but that's compensation that's not a penalty.
>> Well, I mean they have to put the worker back and they have to also I didn't post a notice um and distribute that to other employees. >> That's not a penalty. That's just reinstating the status quo. Is that right? >> Well, I think the notice posting um most employers would argue is a penalty.
>> It's not a penalty like a fine. >> Well, that's correct. We're not we're not um we do not have the ability to issue those types of things. >> Another problem is that when a new union forms um they have some have trouble getting a first contract. What can be done to ensure that an employer does not
refuse to agree to a first contract? Well, I mean, this is what we discussed earlier. So, there we have plenty of options in terms of unfair labor practices, but as we've talked about here, we need to be able to get to those unfair labor practices to have findings in relation to that. So, some of the remedies that could come out of an
unfair labor practice in relation to bad faith bargaining would be mandatory bargaining and schedules, the use of a mediator, and so forth. >> Thank you. And while we're discussing um issues affecting unions, I just wanted to point out, Mr. chairman that representatives from the machinist IM
union and unite here are in the audience. Um so thank you Mr. Chairman I yield back. Um like to recognize myself for five minutes. Um it's no exaggeration that the NLRB under the previous administration rigged the system to
favor union leadership over both workers and employers. That's a problem, a serious problem since the NLRB is supposed to act as a neutral mediator between unions, workers, and employers. One example of the Biden era overreach is this effort to reclassify independent
contractors as employees even when both employers and workers do not want the reclassific reclassification. That's why I'm championing the Rural Healthc Care Act, which would codify local tenants as independent contractors. This legislation ensures a politically
motivated decisions at the NLRB will not prevent these medical professions from offering their services in areas lacking health care resources. I thank our witnesses I think our witnesses for coming before the committee today and I look forward to learning about how you're resolving the mistakes of the previous administration. Uh Miss Kerry,
uh the National Board Relations Act protects not only worker rights but all to organize but also their rights to refrain from union activity. Could you discuss whether the Biden Harris era general counsel's enforcement agenda adequately protected workers who chose not to unionize or who sought to
descertify a union? >> Unfortunately, I think a majority of the cases that were filed in terms of descertification petitions, which you mentioned at the end, were ultimately blocked by unfair labor practice proceedings. and given the amount of cases that were pending in the backlog,
they were not prioritized in the way that they should have been in order to get a quicker resolution for those RD um or descertification petitions. >> And what are you doing to ensure that the agency serves all workers uh not just those who want to have a union representation? >> Yeah, I mean it's certainly inherent in
the act that employees are protected even when they want to refrain from doing that. So in terms of addressing cases that are filed in relation to blocking charges, which I mentioned, which is a charge that would block a representation case or a descertification for moving forward, we do prioritize the processing of those
types of cases in the regions so that we can assure that they are processed quickly and that we can get to a resolution on the representation cases. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Mr. Murphy. Uh, the Atlantic Opera decision reinstated the independent contractor classification
standard that the DC uh circuit previous revoked, finding that the board created a standard inconsistent with common law. Restricting independent contractor status undermines the workers freedom to choose how they work. Can you discuss the DC's circuit reasoning?
I can't uh discuss this DC circuit's reasoning specifically, but I the the current board position in Atlanta Opera certainly puts us in tension with the definition that the DC circuit has consistently uh had. And I would also
note that over the years there's been much back and forth with with respect to board president defining who is and who is not an independent uh contractor. Uh, one possible solution to this back and forth would be legislative action. Um, the board can only do so much. We may
revisit and I believe we might already have pending before us a case asking to uh reconsider Atlanta Opera. I can't talk about the specifics of that, but >> Okay. And how might the full board be able to take steps to revisit the Atlanta Opera and restore a
classification standard that respects both judicial precedent and preferences of workers who choose independent arrangements? As I just mentioned, I think we do have cases pending or likely to have cases pending that will give us that opportunity. The other alternative would be through rulemaking, but that's
a rather extensive and long long pro process. >> Okay. Under the B administration, then NLRB general counsel Bruo issued a memo stating that her belief that certain college athletes were employers employees under the National Labor
Relations Act. The NLRB regional director later found Dartmouth basketball players should be employees. And another NLRB regional director alleged that University of South Southern California student athletes are employees. Al although both of these
cases ultimately withdrawn. Could you discuss the factors that should be considered when classifying student athletes as employees uh or not as employee employees under the act? >> As you mentioned, both of those cases have washed out. I think that the National Labor Relations Board is ills
suited to resolve nationwide the issue of whether or not uh student athletes are employees or not employees because we only have jurisdiction over private collegiate institutions and uh the majority of the big four conferences that people refer to in the major sports
the m the overwhelming majority consists of public institutions. So it might be preferable, I'm not advocating, but I'm saying it might be preferable for Congress to consider an independent agency with jurisdiction over all of those entities for the specific purpose of establishing, you know, uniformity
for and compensation for student athletes or however one wishes to define them. >> Okay, thank you. Uh, I'm going to u now >> Okay. Now I'd like to recognize my friend from Connecticut, Miss Hayes.
>> Thank you. And thank you both for testifying today. There's lots of hearings going on. The NLRB has been unable to conduct normal business during much of the Trump administration due to a lack of a quorum on the board. We've heard that from many other members. This has caused a significant disruption to
NLRB operations, including a backlog of over 3,500 pending cases. These cases are critical to protecting the rights of employees to organize, determine union representation, and address unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act. I appreciate the board
prioritizing the backlog of cases. Still, I'm concerned the NLRB does not have sufficient staffing and resources to process the cases the cases efficiently while ensuring protection for worker rights. Reports indicate the
NL NLRB has less than 75% of the staff needed across all regional offices to handle the current case loads. Further, the Trump administration has proposed an additional 3% funding cut of $14 million to the NLRB in FY27 as case loads
continue to rise. Miss Casey, how would additional help funding the NLRB process? How would additional funding help the NLRB process the backlog of cases and staffing needed across the board? and what safeguards are in place to ensure the rights of workers are
protected while the NLRB attempts to adjudicate this backlog efficiently. >> Thank you. Um yes, I mean I agree. We we definitely need more staffing if we're going to attack the backlog in the way that it needs to be to get answers to workers. In terms of the steps that
we're taking, every plan that we're putting into action right now in terms of attacking the backlog is based on the staffing that we have right now. We would love to have additional staff so that we can come at this from even additional layers and a diff different
directions to be able to do this. So we would obviously have to start with training for the new board agents who would be investigating and litigating any unfair labor practices. So certainly any additional funding would be put toward um you know additional training for those new staff uh for all the new
staff. We also quite frankly are going to have some space issues. Um, there's been a lot of GSA realignments that have happened over the past five years that have reduced a significant amount of space for us as well. >> So, I guess directly, can the NLRB handle it at current staffing levels with no changes? Do you feel confident
that you could handle the work ahead? >> We are only clearing about an additional 108 cases per month on top of what we're intaking. So, you can help me with the math on that, but >> No, no, no. That's why you're here. Yes or no? >> At the current level, no. >> No. Thank you. Uh, the NLRB issued a
landmark 2024 ruling regarding Amazon prohibitive captive audience meeting after my state, the state of Connecticut, passed legislation to ban this practice two years earlier. Connecticut law prohibits employers from retaliating against workers who refuse to attend employermandated meetings on
political or religious matters. These captive avoidance meetings are often used by employers to discourage workers from organizing or joining a union. A federal court upheld the Connecticut law in February. Mr. Murphy, you stated earlier in this hearing that employers
have the right to free speech when discussing the NLRB Amazon ruling. While employers have a right to free speech, employees also have a right to explore their options without intimidation or coercion. M uh Mr. Murphy, I guess, has there been any instances where where
employers have gone beyond free speech to discourage unionization in violation of the National Labor Relations Act? >> Too many to count. Um, of course, you know, the the freedom to engage in a
captive audience uh speech does not give employers the freedom to make threats in violation of the National Labor Relations Act or to make promises of benefits in violation of the National Labor Relations Act. >> Thank you. I think many of these captive audience meetings go beyond free speech
and discourage unionization and I hope that you will continue to abide by this precedent. But also in closing, I just like to remind everyone, unions are the membership. You know, I hear everyone in these committees talking about union bosses and union organizing. They are the members, the workers, the people who
who show up every day to work and earn a living wage. And we have a responsibility to them. That's what the Department of Labor should protect, those employees and their labor rights and their organiz organization rights. I mean there may be uh corporations where
employees choose not to unionize but again it is their choice and what we have to do is remove all the barriers so that they can make those decisions free from intimidation. Thank you and I yield back. >> Gentle lady yields. Now I call on the ranking member Mr. Sier for your line of
question. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um Chairman Murphy, Miss Gary, this has been a breath of fresh air. forgive us on our side if we're a little bit suspicious. Um, it's not directed at you personally.
Uh, so I want to couple things. First of all, conflicts of interest. Carrie was brought up earlier about a potential conflict you had about recusing yourself and the timeline with Amazon. And then the previous administration, there was a
controversy with board member Emanuel. Uh, and Mr. Murphy, you were in the organization. So, can both of you speak to um trust that this committee needs as far as uh disclosures and then more broadly trust about how we can work with
you if we're going to get extra money. Nothing would make me happier than if you would just uh have the money and impose laws in a in a bipartisan fair way. So, first, Miss Carrie, I wanted to bring it up because it was already
brought up. Conflicts of interest. >> Correct. Yes. So um my ethics agreement is public. It's available. Um you know we had a line of question about this as well at my nomination hearing. Um so basically my ethics agreement lays out all the parameters. It is very matter
specific. So um you know there there are deadlines that are rolling deadlines under the ethics agreement and in relation to that I'm in constant contact with the DEO which is a designated agency ethics officer in our agency and I also have two screeners in my front
office that review cases before they come before me for consideration. Um, and I think that Laurel and Lisa, who are here behind me and who are in my front office, would probably say I'm overly cautious at times in relation to any case I open, um, I always check the
participant list prior to looking at anything in the file. So, in terms of how I can make you more comfortable with the fact that I abide by my ethics agreement, other than telling you what I just said and my sworn testimony, um, I completely abide by that ethics agreement and I take it extremely seriously.
first with the ethics issues. You've been there for a long time. I really appreciate your service and being willing to come back. Um so on ethics first and then secondarily everything we've heard today is very positive. So how does the committee both the chair and I in a bipartisan way keep in
communication make sure we're helping but also we're getting results not just with the backlogs but all the operations of the board. As far as ethics are concerned, sir, >> 47 years of board experience, no uh experience outside and um I had to
divest myself of my vast stock holdings of four companies before uh right after I took office. So I have no recusal issues. Uh I've arranged made those arrangements through the office of ethics at the board. Um as far as uh communications, I welcome them
absolutely at any point in time. uh it doesn't have to be in in in this particular context, but as long as the communications do not involve a specific case that I can understand, >> I'm open to responding particularly as to our operations.
>> And as to budget, by all means, anything that we can do to persuade the the House and Senate to give us at least as much as was asked in the OM directed budget proposal and uh and hopefully more if you're willing to do so. Certainly not
the 200 million which would require a disastrous cut in agency operations. >> And you you mentioned earlier and I would expect this from a Princeton graduate the ethical behavior. Um but you mentioned that you would resign if there was inappropriate pressure. Could
you um given what you just said, could you speak a little bit more to that? >> Well, I I I mean that, sir. uh you know if the president has the authority to fire a board member and I have a feeling that the the Supreme Court in the slaughter decision will make that ruling then if I am asked specifically to
resolve a particular case on one way or another um apart from the facts and legal issues applicable to the case I will uh recuse myself in the first instance from further participation in that case and if that's not satisfactory
to the person asking me to do something then I would would resign One just last question. One experience I had in California when I was chair of the labor committee in the state senate was it was the same employers breaking the laws and knowing very well that um
government doesn't always work in the most coordinated effort. So we created in a bipartisan way um an inter agency agreement with the use technology. So people who were failing to pay their franchise tax, their board of equalization or breaking labor laws, it
was all coordinated and it was a great disincentive. And I'll tell you who was really supportive were good employers because they were competing against people who weren't paying their taxes and weren't paying their workers comp. So is there potential that this committee could work with you to improve
that? Because if you're a bad employer, if you're a bad human being, it's just Pavlov's dog. You're more likely not to do it if you know you're going to get caught. We can continue. I I'm some type of some type of
coordination might be appropriate, but again, that becomes case specific. So, >> the gentleman yields. Now, I call on Miss Omar from Minnesota for your five minutes of questioning. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Miss Carrie, prior to your confirmation as
general counsel, you served as a partner at Morgan Lewis, uh, which is one of the most notorious union busting firms in the country. Uh, Morgan Lewis represents some of the largest corporations fighting against worker organizing such
as SpaceX, Tesla, and even Amazon. The reason I'm mentioning your former law firm is because your office has now given Amazon a major victory by pursuing a settlement that shuts down a year'sl long case.
This case could have found Amazon to be a joint employer of delivery delivery drivers and require it to bargain with its union workers. Amazon has fought for years against recognizing any responsibility for the delivery workers
who wear its logo, drive its trucks, follow its instructions. In fact, there was a recent Bloomberg report published just this week that uncovered the extensive control Amazon has over its drivers, from controlling their routes
to even their hygiene. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record the Bloomberg article titled What Trump Delivered for Amazon. >> Without objection, >> uh, Miss Kerry, you have been on the job
for about 6 months, uh, and we're already seeing one of the largest clients of your former firm get a bailout. I am deeply concerned about the conflict of interest here and about your willingness to enforce the law in good faith. Did you represent Amazon at
Morgan Lewis? >> I did. >> Okay. So, why didn't you recuse yourself? >> Because pursuant to the eth ethics agreement, any recusal obligation would have expired in December
prior to me being sworn in. Mhm. In your confirmation hearing before the Senate, did you commit to recusing yourself from any enforcement decision or any actions involving Amazon? >> During my confirmation hearing, Senator Holly asked me at that moment if I would
be recused from Amazon. And the answer in July of last year was yes. >> And so what changed? com pursuant to my ethics agreement that was approved by the Office of Government Ethics, my recusal to Amazon fell off in
December prior to me being a sworn in as general counsel. >> Did you direct any regional staff to pursue a settlement with Amazon in Palmdale, California? >> Um, yes, that is my job. >> So, the settlement lets Amazon walk away
without ever being found a joint employer. Did you specifically provide that provision to be included? >> So, I can't talk about the case because it is still pending litigation. Amazon, I'm sorry, the team source filed a special appeal to the board um which will be sitting before Jim. I have filed
an answer to that appeal which was filed late last night. I will say and I think it would be worth your while if you have not is to read the administrative law judge's decision in approving that settlement. it is very telling and the facts that she relayed are very accurate
in relation to questions in relation to the underlying authorization um and recognition in general. And additionally, I think that she did a great job in laying out how this what actually comports with long-standing board law and results in a quicker
settlement where employees would actually get a much faster resolution. Did anyone from the White House or a political appointee um contact you regarding this case or other Amazon cases? >> No.
>> Um so we are to believe that Amazon, which donated a $1 million to the Trump inauguration, got the most favorable position outcome and nobody made a call. That sounds like a huge coincidence. Uh,
will you provide the committee with a list of cases you have recused yourself from since you've been sworn in? >> I am sure we can get that for you. >> Miss Casey, your job is to protect workers and to hold law-breaking companies accountable. You are not here
to give your former clients or this administration's friends a get out of jail free card. Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record the transcript from Miss Casey's confirmation hearing. >> Without objection.
>> Thank you. And I yield back. >> Gentle lady yields. Okay. And I want to thank our witnesses uh for um your very candid and and very um
truthful and factful responses to our question today and u it was a a brilliant u hearing I believe and I believe that ranking member will agree with me on that. Um and so uh with that I will recognize the ranking member for
your closing remarks. >> Mr. Chair, everybody laughed when you said that because I you didn't see me. I was shaking your head, my head. No. Um, just in the spirit of never mind. I just want to thank you both. This is a a breath of fresh air. Um, both of us were talking. We'd like to work with you
together. We're going to have differences, but that's okay. Um, all of the my colleagues are probably sick of me bringing up the Eisenhower quote where he said, "Only a fool would come between an American worker and their ability to organize." And that's from, I
believe, um, as somebody who's read everything I can about former president, that he realized in his experience as a a military leader, but also as a logistics expert, that he needed average Americans to fight a war, to build an
economy, and to win a war. Well, he valued that very and I think we can do that in this country and still have people be very successful on the investment side, but we have to have those counterveailing institutions and you are in charge of uh in many ways
protecting one of those counterveiling institutions. Mr. Murphy, you know this from almost 50 years. So, I just want to say I'm encouraged. I look forward to working with you. Miss Gary, I don't know if you've gone to the regional administrative office in San Francisco, but if if you haven't yet, um I'd be
happy to join you there. Um I I know that area well. I used to have a restaurant right around the corner and had the Biden regional administrator in every once in a while. So, I look forward to working with you, but um don't be offended if I I want to hold you accountable and make sure that that
trust continues to be earned. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. I yel back. I thank I thank the ranking member. Again, I thank our witnesses for your testimony and for shedding light on the challenges the NLRB is facing today, and I commend the agency for actively
working to clean up the mess left by the previous administration. Today's discussion reinforced how the Biden Harris NLRB departed from neutrality, tilting toward union leaders at the expense of worker choice and long-standing president. The Biden's board policy choices left the agency
with a staggering case backlog and undermined the board's ability to carry out its purpose under the act and to function as a fair and efficient arbiter of workplace disputes. Chairman Murphy and General Counsel Kerry now face the significant task of restoring balance at
the agency, ensuring that cases are processed efficiently and reestablishing the board's neutral role. Filling vacant board seats remains essential. so the agency can decide cases more quickly and restore the president the Biden board
cast aside. I again urge the Senate to confirm President Trump's nominees. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues and with today's witnesses to make sure the NLRB protects workers rights, respects employers obligation,
and operates with fairness and stability stability. And you have my commitment on that. and I look forward to working with you uh as we continue through this process and thank you for your great work and uh in dealing with this backlog
and u uh with that uh >> Mr. Chairman. Yes. Sorry to interrupt. I just want to request unanimous consent to enter into the record an oversight letter u from ranking member Scott and I and also from an article from the New Republic how Trump is wrecking the
agency that protects workers labor rights. Without objection. >> Thank you. >> Okay. With that, uh, again, I'd like to thank the witnesses for your time and the subcommittee today. And without objection, there being no further business, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.