HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022313.jpg

54042 Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations the notice of a final rule, DOL rejected commenters’ contentions that the Executive Order and implementing regulation were preempted by the Board’s jurisdiction under the Garmon doctrine.188 Necessarily, this meant that DOL believed that the rule requiring federal contractors to post the employee rights notice did not involve any rights protected by Section 7 of the Act, such as a right to receive such information from their employer, or conduct prohibited by the Act, such as the employer’s failure to provide such information. Not only does my colleagues’ rulemaking action today contradict DOL’s preemption analysis, but its flaws are manifest in comparison to the DOL’s rule and the authority enabling it. Conclusion!®9 Surely, no one can seriously believe that today’s rule is primarily intended to inform employees of their Section 7 right to refrain from or to oppose organizational activities, collective bargaining, and union representation. My colleagues seek through promulgation of this rule to reverse the steady downward trend in union density among private sector employees in the non-agricultural American workforce. Theirs is a policy choice which they purport to effectuate with the force of law on several fronts in rulemaking and in case-by-case adjudication. In this instance, their action in declaring that employers violate the law by failing to inform employees of their Section 7 rights is both unauthorized and arbitrary and capricious. Regardless of the arguable merits of their policy choice or the broad scope of Chevron deference and the Board’s rulemaking authority, I am confident that a reviewing court will soon rescue the Board from itself and restore the law to where it was before the sorcerer’s apprentice sent it askew. V. Regulatory Procedures A. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires agencies promulgating final rules to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis and to develop alternatives 188 San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244 (1959) 189 Because I find the rule is invalid, I find it unnecessary to comment on the content of the notice or the consequences, other than finding an unfair labor practice, if an employer fails to post the required notice. For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in /. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 9 (2010), I also disagree with the rule’s requirement that certain employers must also electronically distribute the notice. wherever possible, when drafting regulations that will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The focus of the RFA is to ensure that agencies ‘‘review draft rules to assess and take appropriate account of the potential impact on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations, as provided by the [RFA].” E.O. 13272, Sec. 1, 67 FR 53461 (‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking’’). However, an agency is not required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis for a final tule if the agency head certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Based on the analysis below, in which the Board has estimated the financial burdens to employers subject to the NLRA associated with complying with the requirements contained in this final tule, the Board has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this tule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The primary goal of this rule is notifying employees of their rights under the NLRA. This goal is achieved through the posting of notices by employers subject to the NLRA of the rights of employees under the NLRA. The Board will make the notices available at no cost to employers; there are no information collection, record keeping, or reporting requirements. The Board estimates that in order to comply with this rule, each employer subject to the NLRA will spend a total of 2 hours during the first year in which the rule is in effect. This includes 30 minutes for the employer to learn where and how to post the required notices, 30 minutes to acquire the notices from the Board or its Web site, and 60 minutes to post them physically and electronically, depending on where and how the employer customarily posts notices to employees. The Board assumes that these activities will be performed by a professional or business worker, who, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, earned a total hourly wage of about $32.20 in March 2011, including fringe benefits.19° The 199 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Economic News Release,” Table B-8, June 3, 2011 (available at http://www.bls. gov). (The Board is administratively informed that BLS estimates that fringe benefits are approximately equal to 40 percent of hourly wages. Thus, to calculate total average hourly earnings, BLS multiplies average hourly wages by 1.4. In March, 2011, average hourly wages for professional and Board then multiplied this figure by 2 hours to estimate the average costs for employers to comply with this rule during the first year in which the rule is in effect. Accordingly, this rule is estimated to impose average costs of $64.40 per employer subject to the NLRA (2 hours x $32.20) during the first year.19! These costs will decrease dramatically in subsequent years because the only employers affected will be those that did not previously satisfy their posting requirements or that have since expanded their facilities or established new ones. Because the final rule will not require employers to post the notice by email, instant messaging, text messaging, and the like, the cost of compliance should be, if anything, somewhat less than the Board previously estimated. According to the United States Census Bureau, there were approximately 6 million businesses with employees in 2007. Of those, the SBA estimates that all but about 18,300 were small businesses with fewer than 500 employees.192 This rule does not apply to employers that do not meet the Board’s jurisdictional requirements, but business workers were $23.00. Table B-8. Accordingly, the Board multiplied that number by 1.4 to arrive at its estimate of $32.20 average hourly earnings, including fringe benefits.) In the NPRM, the Board estimated hourly earnings of $31.02, based on BLS data from January 2009. 75 FR 80415. The estimate has been updated to reflect increases in hourly earnings since that time. Those increases have been relatively minor, and do not affect the Board’s conclusion that the economic impact of the rule will not be significant; see discussion below. 191 The National Roofing Contractors Association asserts (without support) that “federal agencies have a notoriously poor track record in estimating the costs of new regulations on businesses”; it therefore predicts that “the actual cost for many employers could be considerably higher.” The Board recognizes that some employers, generally firms with extensive and/or multiple facilities, may incur initial compliance costs in excess of the Board’s estimate. For example, a company with multiple locations may require more than 30 minutes to physically post the notices on all of its various bulletin boards. The Board’s estimate, however, is an average for all employers; many small employers, especially those with only one facility and/or limited electronic communication with employees, may incur lower compliance costs. In this regard, however, contrary to numerous comments, such as that of St Mar Enterprises, Inc., the Board does not expect that the rule will be “very burdensome” for businesses with more than one facility. Normally, such firms should have to learn about the rule’s requirements and acquire the notices only once, no matter how many facilities are involved. The same should be true for electronic posting: downloading the notice and posting it on an employer’s Web site normally should have to be done once for all facilities. Thus, the only additional costs involved for multi-facility firms should be those of physically posting the notices at each facility. 192 Source: SBA Office of Advocacy estimates based on data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, and trends from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Business Employment Dynamics. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022313