HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022316.jpg

Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations 54045 Some comments assert that the content of the notice will prompt employee questions, which managers and supervisors will have to answer, and be trained to answer, and that the Board failed to account for the cost of such training and discussions in terms of lost work time.2°> Other comments contend that employers will incur costs of opposing an increased number of union organizing campaigns.?°6 Relatedly, several comments state that employers should be allowed to, and/or will respond to the notice by informing employees of aspects of unionization and collective bargaining that are not covered by the notice; some suggest that employers may post their own notices presenting their point of view.2°7 (A few comments, by contrast, protest that employers will be prohibited from presenting their side of the issues raised by the posting of notices.) The Board responds that any costs that employers may incur in responding to employee questions, in setting forth the employers’ views on unions and collective bargaining, or in opposing union organizing efforts will be incurred entirely at the employers’ own volition; they are not a cost of complying with the rule. As discussed above, many comments express concerns that union supporters will tear down the notices in order to expose employers to 8(a)(1) liability for failing to post the notices. Some of these comments also contend that, as a result, employers will have to spend considerable time monitoring the notices to make sure that they are not torn down, or incur additional costs of installing tamper-proof bulletin boards. One commenter predicts that his employer will have to spend $20,000 for such bulletin boards at a single facility, or a total of $100,000 at all of its facilities, and even then will have to spend two hours each month monitoring the postings. For the reasons discussed above, the Board is not convinced at this time that the problem of posters being torn down is anything more than speculative, and accordingly is inclined to discount these predictions substantially. In any event, the rule requires only that employers ‘‘take reasonable steps’’—not every conceivable step—to ensure that the 205 See, e.g., comments of Cass County Electric Cooperative and Baker & McKenzie. The latter estimates that each private sector employee will spend at least an hour attending meetings concerning the content of the notice, and that the cost to the economy in terms of lost employee work time will be $3.5 billion. 206 See, e.g., comment of Dr. Pepper Snapple Group. 207 See, e.g., comments of Metro Toyota and Capital Associated Industries, Inc. notice is not defaced or torn down. The rule does not require, or even suggest, that employers must spend thousands of dollars to install tamper-proof bulletin boards or that employers must constantly monitor the notice.2°8 One comment contends that most small employers do not have 11 x 17- inch color printers, and therefore will have to have the posters printed commercially at a cost that, alone, assertedly will exceed the Board’s estimate of the cost of the rule. The Board understands the concerns of this small employer. The Board points out that it will furnish a reasonable number of copies of the notice free of charge to any requesting employer. Moreover, as explained above, employers may reproduce the notice in black-and-white and may print the notice on two standard-sized, 8.5 x 11-inch pages and tape or bind them together, rather than having them printed commercially. A number of comments argue that the tule will lead to workplace conflict. For example, the comment of Wiseda Corporation contains the following: Unnecessary Confusion and Conflict in the Workplace. The labor law terms and industrial union language of the proposed notice (such as hiring hall and concerted activity) present an unclear and adversarial picture to employees. Most non-union employers like us, who wish to remain non- union, encourage cooperative problem solving. In a modern non-union workplace, to require such a poster encouraging strikes and restroom leaflets is disrespectful of the hard work and good intentions of employers, management, and employees. The proposed poster would exist alongside other company notices on problem-solving, respect for others, resolving harassment issues, etc., and would clearly be out of character and inappropriate. (Emphasis in original.) Another comment puts it more bluntly: “The notice as proposed is more of an invitation to cause employee/employer disputes rather than an explanation of employee rights.” The Board’s response is that the ill effects predicted in these comments, like the predicted adverse effects of unionization discussed above, are not costs of compliance with the tule, but of employees’ learning about their workplace rights. In addition, Congress, not the Board, created the subject rights and did so after finding that vesting employees with these rights would reduce industrial strife. B, Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 29 The final rule imposes certain minimal burdens associated with the 208 Contrary to one comment’s suggestion, no employer will be “bankrupted” by fines imposed if the notice is torn down. As explained above, the Board does not have the authority to impose fines. 209 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. posting of the employee notice required by § 104.202. As noted in § 104.202(e), the Board will make the notice available, and employers will be permitted to post copies of the notice that are exact duplicates in content, size, format, and type size and style. Under the regulations implementing the PRA, “[t]he public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal government to [a] recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public” is not considered a ‘“‘collection of information” under the Act. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2). Therefore, contrary to several comments, the posting requirement is not subject to the PRA.21° The Board received no comments suggesting that the PRA covers the costs to the Federal government of administering the regulations established by the proposed rule. Therefore, the NPRM’s discussion of this issue stands. Accordingly, this rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.). C. Congressional Review Act {CRA}?! This rule is a “‘major rule” as defined by Section 804(2) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act), because it will have an effect on the economy of more than $100 million, at least during the year it takes effect. 5 U.S.C. 804(2)(A).212 Accordingly, the 210 The California Chamber of Commerce and the National Council of Agricultural Employers dispute this conclusion. They assert that the PRA distinguishes between the “agencies” to which it applies and the “Federal government,” and therefore that the exemption provided in 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2) applies only to information supplied by “the actual Federal government,” not to information supplied by a Federal agency such as the Board. The flaw in this argument is that there is no such legal entity as “the [actual] Federal government.” What is commonly referred to as ‘‘the Federal government” is a collection of the three branches of the United States government, including the departments of the executive branch, and the various independent agencies, including the Board. If ‘the Federal government” can be said to act at all, it can do so only through one or more of those entities—in this instance, the Board—and that is undoubtedly the meaning that the drafters of 5 CFR 1320(c}(2) meant to convey. 2115 U.S.C. 801 et seq. 212 A rule is a “major rule” for CRA purposes if it will (A) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (B) cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, government agencies, or geographic regions; or (C) result in significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign- based enterprises in domestic and export markets. 5 U.S.C. 804. The notice-posting rule is a “major Continued HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022316