PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 24, 2017
Representation Fairness Restoration Act
This bill amends the National Labor Relations Act to replace the current legal standard for determining the appropriateness of a collective bargaining unit. Under a 2011 ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, the NLRB must approve a requested bargaining unit unless an employer can show that an overwhelming community of interest exists between the requested unit and some other portion of the workforce, thus allowing the formation of smaller bargaining units (i.e., micro-bargaining units). This bill requires the NLRB to determine a unit appropriate for collective bargaining if it consists of employees who share a sufficient community of interest and sets forth factors for the NLRB to consider in determining whether employees share a sufficient community of interest.
People & committees
Sen. Isakson, Johnny [R-GA] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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 S.1217 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 S.1217 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 S.1217 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 S.1217 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.