PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S600)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 28, 2015
National Labor Relations Board Reform Act
Amends the National Labor Relations Act to revise requirements with respect to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), and the process for appellate review.
Increases NLRB membership from five to six. Requires three members to represent each of the two major political parties and, beginning January 1, 2020, each of the two members whose terms expire on the same date to represent a different major political party.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires: (1) four NLRB members to constitute a quorum at all times, and (2) any NLRB determination to be approved by a majority of the members present.
Specifies tenure, including staggered terms, of NLRB members.
Sets forth judicial review procedures for any person subject to a complaint issued or authorized by the OGC.
Sets the compensation rate for each NLRB member, in addition to the OGC, at level IV of the Executive Schedule and the Chairman of the NLRB, as under current law, at level III.
Requires the NLRB to issue a final order reviewing an appeal of a report of an administrative law judge or decision of a regional director within one year after the report or decision; but if the NLRB does not issue a final order within that time, allows any party to the case to move to discharge it. Deems, upon such a motion, the report or the decision to be a final agency action. Prohibits the NLRB from taking further action on the matter.
Reduces authorized appropriations to carry out the Act for each of the succeeding two fiscal years to 80% of the average amount authorized for the prior two fiscal years if, two years after enactment of this Act, the NLRB has failed to issue a final order on more than 90% of the cases pending on (or filed on or after) the date of enactment.
Extends such reduced authorization of appropriations if after four years the NLRB has failed to issue a final order on more than 90% of the cases pending on (or filed on or after) the date that is two years after the date of enactment of this Act.
People & committees
Sen. Alexander, Lamar [R-TN] · R–TN
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. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S600)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 13, 2026. 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.288 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.288 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.288 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.288 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.