formal comments to the Board's proposed rule. - SEIU
formal comments to the Board's proposed rule. - SEIU
formal comments to the Board's proposed rule. - SEIU
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
solicitation may present” against <strong>the</strong> importance of a fair election process and an informed elec<strong>to</strong>rate.<br />
The Board’s <strong>proposed</strong> <strong>rule</strong> appropriately balances <strong>the</strong>se interests.<br />
A. § 102.62(d) restriction on use of voter eligibility list is flawed and unworkable<br />
110<br />
Although SEJU strongly supports <strong>the</strong> <strong>proposed</strong> revisions <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> Excelsior list requirements, we<br />
disagree with <strong>the</strong> <strong>proposed</strong> restriction in § 102.62(d) and § 102.67(j) which states: “The parties shall use<br />
<strong>the</strong> list exclusively for purposes related <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> representation proceeding and related Board proceedings.”<br />
(“The Restriction”). The Restriction is unnecessary and ill-defined. It should not be included in <strong>the</strong><br />
final <strong>rule</strong>.<br />
The NPRM is silent about <strong>the</strong> need for, as well as <strong>the</strong> parameters of, <strong>the</strong> Restriction. The<br />
Restriction is stated in a single, short paragraph that has no explication of <strong>the</strong> meaning of <strong>the</strong> Restriction,<br />
<strong>the</strong> problem <strong>the</strong> Restriction addresses, or a means of enforcement. This is particularly distressing<br />
because <strong>the</strong> Restriction is a new concept without precedent. No restriction is imposed on parties’ use of<br />
<strong>the</strong> eligibility list under Excelsior and Wyman-Gordon even though critics have long argued that <strong>the</strong><br />
Excelsior list invaded <strong>the</strong> employers’ rights, infringed employees’ privacy and was subject <strong>to</strong> abuse by<br />
<strong>the</strong> union. The NPRM does not explain which of <strong>the</strong>se concerns, or any o<strong>the</strong>rs, are <strong>the</strong> motivation<br />
behind <strong>the</strong> Restriction. A change in Board law of this significance should not be undertaken without a<br />
well-thought Out and articulated argument demonstrating <strong>the</strong> need for such a change.<br />
Employee privacy does not justify <strong>the</strong> Restriction. The <strong>proposed</strong> changes in <strong>the</strong> voter list that<br />
implicate employee privacy are <strong>the</strong> provision of <strong>the</strong> telephone number and e-mail address, if available.<br />
Non-employer parties already receive names and home addresses. Home visits by union staff are<br />
routine in organizing drives and are more intrusive <strong>the</strong>n phone calls or e-mails. The minimal additional<br />
infringement of employee privacy falls far short of justifying a radical departure from Board law, which,<br />
as shown below, will be impracticable <strong>to</strong> define or enforce.<br />
The Restriction clearly would not apply <strong>to</strong> information that was obtained independently of <strong>the</strong><br />
voter list. But this raises several difficult definitional issues. Non-employer parties accumulate contact<br />
information for many workers before <strong>the</strong> petition is filed, as <strong>the</strong>y must in order <strong>to</strong> obtain a sufficient<br />
showing of interest. Pro-union employees often provide contact information for o<strong>the</strong>r employees during<br />
organizing drives, and often this contact information is incomplete, such as including a phone number<br />
but no home address. Is it a “use of <strong>the</strong> list” within <strong>the</strong> meaning of <strong>the</strong> Restriction if <strong>the</strong> union contacts a<br />
worker for whom it had a telephone number, but not a home address or an e-mail address? Is it “use of<br />
<strong>the</strong> list” if <strong>the</strong> union could have obtained a phone number prior <strong>to</strong> receiving <strong>the</strong> list (because it had a<br />
1d.<br />
110<br />
28