The NLRB is not your friend

Dealing with the NLRB was a very interesting experience. From where I sat, it often felt as though fairness and truth were not the priority. Instead, there were strict rules we had to follow.

As an employer, I could not speak to my employees or make any promises, as that was against the law. The union, on the other hand, could make broad promises and paint a very optimistic picture of what they intended to extract from us.

The process began with discovery. We were required to provide records of every labor hour our crews had worked. They even attempted to claim hours outside the Laborers’ jurisdiction.

I chose not to include those, assuming they could resolve that dispute with my attorney. They also tried to claim work that was already under the jurisdiction of the Operating Engineers. We argued that the same work could not be claimed by two unions.

When we finally went to trial, it took place in a standard hearing room. There was a table at the front for the judge and two tables facing it, with rows of seating behind them. I don’t recall whether I was ever formally called to the stand.

I do remember that the Laborers had two lawyers present: one representing the union and another NLRB attorney prosecuting the case. It was somewhat awkward because I personally knew the union’s attorney. He worked at the same firm where my wife had been employed a few years earlier.

When the NLRB judge entered and took his seat, his opening remark was striking: “I prosecuted John Gotti and put him in jail. You are not better than Gotti.”

I nudged my attorney, who quietly mentioned that we could move for a mistrial, but there was no guarantee that a different judge would be any better. At the time, I wondered how it could possibly be worse.

Several Laborers testified against us, telling detailed stories about how we were terrible employers who mistreated the workforce. What made this particularly surprising was that many of them had worked for us for years.

Later, I asked one of them why he said those things, and he told me he had been instructed by the business agent to do so. There didn’t seem to be any effort to verify whether the claims were true.

The entire experience felt like a “Wild West” trial held in a local saloon, with the outcome decided before it even began. It seemed that the process itself was more about appearance than substance.

From my perspective, the conclusion was that we would lose, and I felt it was predetermined simply because we were employers who had chosen to withdraw from the union. We were fined and initially believed that was the end of the matter. It wasn't.

This experience opened my eyes. It felt less like a system designed for fairness and more like one structured to promote the interests of labor.

I’ll share more about my experiences next week.

#LeadershipMatters #CEOThinking #AdaptiveLeadership #BusinessInnovation #MarketDisruption #StrategicGrowth #ChangeManagement #FutureFocused