HR-2775-115
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 235.
Sponsored by Joe Wilson (R-SC)
What it does
This bill would change the National Labor Relations Act to limit what personal information employers must hand over before a union election. Currently, employers must provide a full contact list (name, home address, phone, and email) to all parties. Under this bill, the list would include each employee's name plus only one additional contact method — phone, email, or mailing address — chosen in writing by the employee. The list could not be requested until at least seven days after the NLRB formally decides which workers are eligible to vote.
Who benefits
Employees who prefer to limit how much of their personal contact information is shared before a union election would benefit, particularly those concerned about unsolicited contact at home. Employers who currently must compile and submit full contact lists would face a narrower disclosure obligation. Workers who do not wish to be contacted by union organizers via multiple channels would have more control over their personal data.
Who is hurt
Labor unions and union organizers would have access to fewer contact methods per worker, potentially making it harder to reach eligible voters during the campaign period. Workers who want to be contacted by organizers through multiple channels but whose co-workers opt for limited disclosure could see reduced organizing outreach. The seven-day delay before the list must be produced would also shorten the effective window for outreach in fast-tracked elections.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that workers have a fundamental privacy interest in their personal contact information and should not be required to have their home addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses automatically handed to outside parties without their consent. They contend that the existing rule — established by NLRB regulation in 2014 — forces employers to disclose sensitive data that could expose employees to unwanted solicitation or harassment. Giving each worker the choice of which single contact method to share, in writing, respects individual autonomy and brings labor election rules in line with broader data-privacy norms. Supporters also argue that unions retain meaningful access to workers through workplace postings, on-site conversations, and the one contact method each employee selects, so organizing activity is not meaningfully impaired — only the volume of unsolicited personal outreach is reduced.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that limiting contact information to a single employee-chosen method would significantly hamper a union's ability to communicate with eligible voters during the compressed timeline of a modern NLRB election. They contend that employers already have continuous, direct access to workers on the job, and that restricting organizers to one contact channel creates a structural imbalance in the campaign period. Opponents also argue that the seven-day delay before the list is produced further compresses the time available for worker outreach, particularly in elections scheduled on short notice. They assert that the existing multi-contact disclosure rule is a reasonable, congressionally authorized condition of the election process — not a privacy violation — because the information is used only for election-related communication and is already in the employer's possession.
Constitutional context
The bill operates within Congress's authority to regulate labor relations affecting interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8), as broadly interpreted in Wickard v. Filburn (1942). The underlying NLRB framework rests on the Necessary and Proper Clause as well. Post-Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts no longer defer to the NLRB's own interpretation of ambiguous statutory language, meaning any agency rule implementing this bill would be subject to independent judicial review. The bill's employee-choice mechanism could also implicate due process notice considerations if workers are not clearly informed of their options. The Tenth Amendment is not directly implicated, as private-sector labor relations are a well-established area of federal jurisdiction.
Checks and balances
This bill would shift authority from the executive branch (specifically the NLRB, an independent agency) back to Congress by writing the contact-list rule directly into statute. Under the current framework, the NLRB set the multi-contact disclosure requirement by regulation in 2014; this bill would supersede that agency rule with a statutory mandate, reducing the agency's discretion to expand disclosure requirements in the future without new legislation. Post-Loper Bright, courts would independently interpret the new statutory language rather than deferring to NLRB guidance.
Historical precedent
The NLRB's 2014 "ambush election" rule (79 Fed. Reg. 74308) first required employers to provide full multi-contact voter lists (the "Excelsior list" requirement, dating to Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236 (1966), was expanded). This bill would partially reverse that 2014 regulatory expansion by statute. The original Excelsior list requirement (names and addresses only) has governed union elections since 1966.