The 'Protecting American Jobs Act' Shifts Labor Complaints from the NLRB to Federal Court, Stripping Agency Power

The “Protecting American Jobs Act” is a major overhaul of how labor law enforcement works in the U.S. This bill essentially dismantles the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) power to investigate and prosecute unfair labor practices, forcing individuals and unions to take their complaints directly to federal court instead. It scraps the existing administrative process—the one where the NLRB acts like a specialized referee—and replaces it with the much slower, more costly, and often less accessible U.S. District Court system. If passed, this change takes effect immediately, with the NLRB required to scrap or update all its existing rules within six months to match this new reality (SEC. 3).

The Administrative Referee Gets Kicked Out

Under current law, if you get fired for trying to organize a union or for reporting a workplace violation (a Section 8(a)(4) violation), you file a charge with the NLRB. The Board’s General Counsel investigates, and if they find merit, the Board issues a formal complaint and handles the case internally. This bill flips that on its head. It redefines these violations as "civil actions" and requires the person alleging the violation to file a lawsuit directly in federal court (SEC. 2, Shifting from Unfair Labor Practice Charges to Civil Actions). Think of the difference between going to Small Claims Court (the NLRB, a specialized forum) versus filing a full-blown federal lawsuit with all the associated costs, discovery, and procedural complexity. For an ordinary worker or a small union, this shift could make seeking justice prohibitively expensive and complicated, effectively denying them a remedy.

No More Rulemaking for the NLRB

One of the most significant changes is the muzzle placed on the NLRB’s ability to create rules. Currently, the Board sets rules for everything from how union elections are conducted to what counts as an unfair labor practice. This bill restricts the NLRB’s rulemaking authority only to its own internal operations (SEC. 2, Limiting the Board's Rulemaking Power). This means the Board can no longer set broad standards or clarify labor law through regulation. While proponents might argue this is a win for deregulation, in practice, it means that new labor issues or changing workplace dynamics won't be addressed by a specialized agency. Instead, these interpretations will be left to individual federal judges who may lack specialized labor law expertise, leading to inconsistent rulings across the country.

What Happens to the Enforcement Mechanism?

The bill systematically removes the NLRB’s teeth. It strikes out most of Section 10 of the NLRA—the part that details the Board’s power to investigate, issue complaints, hold hearings, and enforce its decisions. The Board’s power to “prevent” unfair labor practices is downgraded to merely the power to “investigate.” The General Counsel’s role is narrowed, and the Administrative Law Judges’ duties are reduced (SEC. 2, Overhauling Unfair Labor Practice Investigations and Adjudication). Essentially, the entire structure designed to provide a quick, accessible, and specialized administrative remedy for labor disputes is dismantled. If an allegation is found true under the new, stripped-down process, the Board officer only submits a written summary of findings to the parties, rather than issuing a formal complaint that leads to enforcement and remedy. This suggests a massive reduction in the actual enforcement power available to protect employees against retaliation.