2017: Fitzpatrick Voted Against The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee
Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Eliminating The NLRB. In
October 2017, Fitzpatrick voted against a budget resolution that would
in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9
trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the
budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10
years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for
fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations
funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate
funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would
assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert
Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block
grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social
Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be
included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House
GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of
139 to 281. [House Vote 555,
10/5/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional
Actions, H. Amdt.
455;
Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res.
71]
2021: Fitzpatrick Voted To Expand Enforcement From The National Labor
Relations Board. In March 2021, Fitzpatrick voted for the Protecting
the Right to Organize Act of 2021 which would, according to
Congressional Quarterly, "expand enforcement authorities of the National
Labor Relations Board." The vote was on passage. The House passed the
bill by a vote of 225-206. The Senate did not take substantive action on
the bill. [House Vote 70,
3/9/21; Congressional
Quarterly, 3/9/21;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
842]
The Bill Would Have Enforced National Labor Relations Board Orders
And Imposed Several Civil Monetary Penalties, Including Fees Up To
$50K Against Employers Who Punish Organized Labor. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "authorize the NLRB to enforce any orders
it issues and to impose a number of civil monetary penalties,
including penalties of up to $50,000 against employers who prevent
or punish organizing activities by employees." [Congressional
Quarterly, 3/9/21]
H.R. 842 Would Amplify Union Strength By Including Penalties For
Union Election Interference Of Employers And Worker's Rights
Violations, And Facilitating Initial Collective Bargaining
Agreements. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure
would make numerous changes to the National Labor Relations Act
aimed at bolstering union strength, including adding penalties for
employees that violate worker rights under the law, prohibiting
employer interference in union elections, and increasing
facilitation of initial collective bargaining agreements."
[Congressional Quarterly,
3/8/21]
Advocates Argued That Requiring Fees From Employers That Violate
Labor Laws During An Organizing Campaign Would Be Critical To
Facilitating The Formation Of A Union. According to Congressional
Quarterly, "Among the bill's provisions is one that supporters
consider crucial to making it easier to form a union: the ability to
require financial payments from employers that break labor laws
during an organizing campaign. Another provision related to
organizing campaigns would ban company practices to discourage
employees from joining a union." [Congressional Quarterly,
5/18/21]
The Bill Would Impose Monetary Penalties For Employers And
Executives, Including Corporate Directors And Company Officers, That
Violate Employees' Rights. According to NPR, "It would establish
monetary penalties for companies and executives that violate
workers' rights. Corporate directors and other officers of the
company could also be held liable." [NPR,
3/9/21]
The Bill Would Have Required The NLRB To Seek Temporary Injections
Against Employers Charged For Enacting Unfair Labor Practices And
Permitted Workers To Sue If The Board Failed To Seek The
Injunctions. According to Congressional Quarterly, "require the
NLRB to seek temporary injunctions against employers charged with
engaging in unfair labor practices and allow employees to bring
civil action if the board fails to seek an injunction."
[Congressional Quarterly,
3/9/21]
The Bill Would Have Modified The Definitions Of "Employee" And
"Supervisor" To Narrow The Categorization Of Independent Contractors
And Supervisors. According to Congressional Quarterly, "modify
definitions of 'employee' and 'supervisor,' particularly to narrow
the classification of independent contractors and supervisors, two
categories of employees not eligible for collective bargaining."
[Congressional Quarterly,
3/9/21]
2017: Fitzpatrick Voted Against Cutting NLRB Funding By $99
Million. In September 2017, Fitzpatrick voted against an amendment
that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "decrease[d]
the salaries and expenses of the National Labor Relations Board by $99
million and would transfer the savings to the spending reduction
account." The underlying legislation was a legislative vehicle for an FY
2018 Omnibus appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a
vote of 175 to 241. [House Vote 510,
9/13/17; Congressional
Quarterly, 9/13/17; Congressional
Actions, H. Amdt.
417;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
3354]
2024: Fitzpatrick Voted To Override President Biden's Veto Of A
Resolution That Disapproved A National Labor Relations Board Joint
Employer Status Rule. In January 2024, according to Congressional
Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted for "passage over President Joe Biden's
veto of the joint resolution (H J Res 98) disapproving a National Labor
Relations Board joint-employer status rule." The vote was on passage.
The House rejected the veto override by a vote of 214 to 191. [House
Vote 185, 5/7/24;
Congressional Quarterly,
5/7/24; Congressional Actions,
H.J. Res.
98]
2024: Fitzpatrick Voted To Disapprove A National Labor Relations Board
Joint Employer Status Rule That Expanded The Definition Of Joint
Employers For Union Bargaining Purposes. In January 2024, according to
Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted for the "joint resolution
that would provide for congressional disapproval of the October 2023
National Labor Relations Board rule that defines a joint employer to
include any entity that possesses the authority to determine the
essential employment terms and conditions of another employer's
employees, regardless of whether it actually exercises such authority.
The rule requires a joint employer to bargain with its employees' union
representative with respect to any employment term or condition it
possesses the authority to control. Under the provisions of the joint
resolution, the October 2023 NLRB rule would have no force or effect."
The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of
206 to 177, thus it was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 10,
1/12/24; Congressional
Quarterly, 1/12/24;
Congressional Actions, H.J. Res.
98]
2024: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted To Disapprove A National Labor
Relations Board Joint Employer Status Rule. In January 2024, according
to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted for the "adoption of the
rule (H Res 947) that would provide for House floor consideration of the
[...] joint resolution (HJ Res 98) that would provide for
congressional disapproval of a National Labor Relations Board joint
employer status rule [...] The rule would provide for up to one hour
of debate on each bill." The vote was on the previous question. The
House agreed to the motion by a vote of 213 to 200. [House Vote 5,
1/10/24; Congressional
Quarterly, 1/10/24; Congressional
Actions, H.Res.
947;
Congressional Actions, H.J. Res.
98]
2024: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted To Disapprove A National Labor
Relations Board Joint Employer Status Rule. In January 2024, according
to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted for the "motion to order
the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment)
on the rule (H Res 947) that would provide for House floor consideration
of the [...] joint resolution (HJ Res 98) that would provide for
congressional disapproval of a National Labor Relations Board joint
employer status rule [...] The rule would provide for up to one hour
of debate on each bill. The vote was on the previous question. The House
agreed to the motion by a vote of 213 to 200. [House Vote 2,
1/10/24; Congressional
Quarterly, 1/10/24; Congressional
Actions, H.Res.
947;
Congressional Actions, H.J. Res.
98]
2020: Fitzpatrick Voted For The PRO Act, Which Protected Workers'
Rights To Unionize. In February 2020, Fitzpatrick voted for a bill
that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "expand enforcement
authorities of the National Labor Relations Board and modify procedures
by which employees may unionize and elect representation under federal
labor law. The bill would authorize the NLRB to enforce any orders it
issues. It would authorize the board to impose a number of civil
monetary penalties, including penalties of up to $50,000 against
employers who prevent or punish organizing activities by employees." The
vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 224-194.
[House Vote 50, 2/6/20;
Congressional Quarterly,
2/6/20; Congressional Actions,
H.R.2474]