PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 491.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Dec 9, 2014
Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act - (Sec. 2) Amends the National Labor Relations Act to require the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to require that no investigative hearing take place until at least 14 days after the filing of an election petition regarding collective bargaining representation when the NLRB has reasonable cause to believe that the petition raises a question of representation affecting commerce. Requires such hearings to be non-adversarial, and the hearing officer, in collaboration with the parties, to identify any relevant and material pre-election issues.
Requires the NLRB, in cases where it finds that a question of representation exists, to: (1) direct an election by secret ballot as soon as practicable but not before 35 calendar days after the filing of the election petition, and (2) certify election results only after it has ruled on each pre-election issue not resolved before the election and any additional issue pertaining to the conduct or results of that election.
(Sec. 3) Revises requirements for determination by the NLRB of an appropriate bargaining unit before an election of collective bargaining representation. (In effect reverses the NLRB's August 26, 2011, decision in Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation of Mobile and its June 22, 2011, rulemaking regarding proposed changes to procedures involving the election of collective bargaining representation.)
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Replaces the current restriction in the meaning of collective bargaining unit to employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision. Requires the NLRB, instead, to determine a unit as appropriate for collective bargaining if it consists of employees that share a sufficient community of interest. Specifies factors the NLRB must consider when making such determinations.
Prohibits exclusion of employees from the unit unless the group's interest are sufficiently distinct from those of other employees to warrant the establishment of a separate unit.
People & committees
Rep. Kline, John [R-MN-2] · R–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 491.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. H. Rept. 113-653.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. H. Rept. 113-653.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 14.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jul 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4320 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4320 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4320 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4320 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.