Craig Becker Nomination to the NLRB Hits a Snag

Before the Senate adjourned for the holiday break, it returned to the President for reconsideration (pdf) the nomination of Craig Becker to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). President Obama announced his intent to nominate Becker, who serves as Associate General Counsel to both the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations, in April.  Becker was officially nominated in July.

Of Obama’s three NLRB nominees, Becker has garnered the most controversy. Senators Orin Hatch (R-Utah) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have both strongly expressed their opposition to Becker’s nomination, as have many in the business community. Sen. McCain had stated that he planned to put a hold on Becker’s nomination. Among other criticisms of Becker, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other groups have highlighted an article published in 1993 in the Minnesota Law Review in which Becker claimed that “employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees’ election of representatives.” Others have voiced concern that Becker, who is a proponent of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), would be willing to use Board decisions to effectively institute parts of the proposed act.

Obama’s other nominees to serve on the NLRB – Mark Pearce and Brian Hayes – have not yet been considered. In October, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions voted to approve all three nominations. The intent was to send all three nominations to the Senate floor for consideration, a decision that was not widely received by business advocates, as it would have limited the Senate’s ability to evaluate Becker individually. It is uncertain at this point whether President Obama will choose to re-nominate Becker to the NLRB, make a recess appointment, or scrap his nomination entirely.

Photo credit: MBPHOTO

Information contained in this publication is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or opinion, nor is it a substitute for the professional judgment of an attorney.