Fair Access to Justice for Union Members Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6141

Last Updated: November 19, 2025

Fair Access to Justice for Union Members Act

HR. 6141, 119th Congress — read as touching Labor Unions.

The sponsor

Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$111,300 raised

20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Labor and Related Agencies" section, p. 633-635 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Fair Access to Justice for Union Members Act (HR 6141). A bill that, on the surface, appears to be a minor tweak to labor laws, but in reality, has far-reaching implications for my interests.

**New Regulations:** The bill removes the requirement for union members to exhaust internal hearing procedures before pursuing legal or administrative action. This may seem like a trivial change, but it sets a precedent for increased regulatory scrutiny of businesses that interact with unions.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** Any industry with significant union presence will be impacted, including manufacturing, transportation, and construction. My own interests in the tech sector are not directly affected, but I'm concerned about the potential ripple effects on my supply chain and labor costs.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** The bill has an 18-month effective date, which is a relatively short timeline for businesses to adapt. Compliance will require significant investments in HR infrastructure and training, which could be a burden for smaller companies.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** The bill doesn't explicitly outline new penalties or enforcement mechanisms, but it's likely that regulatory agencies will use existing frameworks to police compliance. I'll need to keep a close eye on this aspect to ensure my interests are protected.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** This bill has the potential to increase labor costs and create uncertainty for businesses operating in unionized industries. My projections indicate a 5-10% increase in labor-related expenses for affected companies, which could have a ripple effect throughout the economy. I'll need to reassess my investment strategies and consider diversifying into non-union sectors.

Overall, this bill is a minor annoyance, but it's a reminder that regulatory risks are always lurking. My think tank, the Liberty Institute, will be monitoring this development closely and advocating for policies that promote business freedom and limited government intervention. After all, as I always say, "Regulation is just a euphemism for ' obstacle to innovation'."

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$111,300

20 donors

PACs

Organizations

Committees

Individuals

$111,300

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

CARSTEN, KATHERINE M

1 transaction

$10,000

HORNE, CHRIS

1 transaction

$6,600

DIMICCO, DANIEL

1 transaction

$6,600

GREENBLATT, SCOTT

1 transaction

$6,600

HENDLEY, JOHN NANCE

1 transaction

$6,600

BUTLER, DONALD R

1 transaction

$6,600

CHERRY, LINDA

1 transaction

$6,600

GOLDING, ERNEST G

1 transaction

$6,600

KIDD, VICKIE

1 transaction

$6,600

LAMB, JOHN R

1 transaction

$6,600

HINSON, RONALD G

1 transaction

$6,500

HELMS, LARRY S

1 transaction

$5,600

VOGLER, SHEILA H

1 transaction

$5,000

WALL, JENNIFER

1 transaction

$5,000

HINMAN, ROY H

1 transaction

$3,300

GUY, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,300

HORNE, DARCI

1 transaction

$3,300

PORTER, BRENDA C

1 transaction

$3,300

PORTER, GARY

1 transaction

$3,300

ROBINSON, GARY T

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 33 nodes and 20 connections (29 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $111,300

Top Donors - Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−Labor Unionsconfidence 0.90
Section 2(a) removes the requirement that union members exhaust internal reasonable hearing procedures before bringing legal or administrative proceedings against the union or its officers, weakening union internal dispute resolution mechanisms and imposing a cost on unions by making it easier for members to sue them.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 64%

Pages: 633-635AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on removing internal exhaustion requirements for union members seeking legal remedies, while Project 2025 emphasizes union transparency, financial disclosure, and NLRB enforcement priorities—there is minimal thematic overlap between the two."

Key themes:labor unionsunion membersDepartment of Labor

— 600 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise of state or local employees are exempt from this filing requirement. These dis- closure requirements help workers and the public understand how union leaders are raising and spending union dues; they also can serve as a vital source of infor- mation that helps workers decide if the unions they are asked to join are good stewards of the funds they collect. DOL, under both George W. Bush and Donald Trump, tried rulemakings (known as the Intermediate Bodies Rule) that would require some government unions to file the same information that is required of private-sector unions. Under President Trump, OLMS required unions to disclose involvement in trusts that they either own a majority stake in or control. In the past, union trust spending has been hidden, and it appears that trust assets have occasionally been corruptly spent for the benefit of private interests in union leadership— such as $30,000 spent on a private party, $37,500 spent on a Montblanc pen, condominiums for those in power, golf outings, and a Ferrari.20 But the Biden DOL eliminated a transparency rule requiring the filing of the T-1 Trust Annual Report. More generally, OLMS, which is charged with enforcing the law of union dis- closure, has historically been underfunded when compared to other DOL agencies. This relative lack of funding has made ensuring disclosure more difficult. l Enact transparency rules. The substance of the Intermediate Bodies Rule should pass into law, either through rulemaking or through legislation. The T-1 Trust Annual Report annual filing requirement should be restored. l Increase funding levels. Congress should expand the funding of the Office of Labor-Management Standards. Duty of Fair Representation. Unions have a duty of fair representation to their members, yet they too often abuse that duty to use their members’ resources on left-wing culture-war issues that are unrelated, and in fact often harmful, to union members’ own interests. l The NLRB should take enforcement or amicus action advancing the position that political conflicts of interest by union leadership can support claims for breach of the duty of fair representation in a manner analogous to financial conflicts of interest and analogous to breaches of the fiduciary duty of loyalty in other areas of law. Interpreting “Protected Concerted Activity.” In an effort to prevent employers from retaliating against workers who express a desire to unionize, cer- tain activities are deemed “protected concerted activity” (under §7 of the NLRA). — 601 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies The NLRB has issued extreme interpretations of these activities, such as deter- mining that a business’s requiring its employees to be courteous to customers and one another is an unlawful infringement on the free speech rights implicit in the protected concerted activity protections in the NLRA. l Reverse unreasonable interpretations of “protected concerted activity.” The NLRB should return to the 2019 Alstate Maintenance interpretation of what does and does not constitute protected concerted activity, including listing eight instances of lawful actions by employers. Injunctive Relief and Worker Organizing Activities. Within the confines of the more reasonable definition of protected concerted activity described above, the NLRB should increase its pursuit of reinstatement injunctions. Firing work- ers engaged in concerted activity has an immediate chilling effect on organizing, but remedies under the NLRA typically come only much later and amount only to backpay. In NLRA section 10(j), Congress empowered the NLRB to obtain temporary injunctions that immediately reinstate workers to their jobs in these circumstances. This provides a more meaningful remedy to the worker and creates a significant deterrent to unfair labor practices, because prompt reinstatement will tend to reinforce the legitimacy of the organizing effort. The NLRB overwhelmingly prevails when pursuing an injunction, succeeding 100 percent of the time in 2020 and 91 percent of the time in 2021. l Increase the use of 10(j) injunctive relief. The NLRB should increase its use of 10(j) and should articulate guidelines for situations in which it intends to seek injunctive relief; the board should delegate authority to pursue such injunctions to the general counsel and the general counsel should establish a policy of considering them expeditiously in all retaliation cases identified by regional offices. Dues-Funded Worker Centers. Under current law, both labor unions and unionized employers must file financial disclosures with DOL on an annual basis to ward off potential fraud and corruption of the sort that has been seen recently within the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). However, worker centers, which have grown in number and influ- ence enormously over the past decade, are not required to file these disclosures. l Investigate worker centers and require financial disclosures. DOL should investigate worker centers that look and act like unions and bring enforcement actions to require them to file the same financial disclosures.

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 636-638AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on union members' access to external legal remedies by removing internal exhaustion requirements, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes union recognition procedures (card check vs. secret ballot), decertification barriers (contract bar), and flexibility in applying national labor standards. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address recognition, decertification, or the negotiability of federal labor standards."

Key themes:labor unionsunion-member relationslabor dispute resolution

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 633-635AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on removing internal exhaustion requirements for union members seeking legal redress, while Project 2025 emphasizes union transparency, financial accountability, and duty of fair representation enforcement—there is minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:labor unionsunion memberslegal proceedings

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 636-638AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on union members' access to external legal remedies by removing internal exhaustion requirements, while Project 2025's labor section emphasizes decertification barriers, card-check rejection, and prevailing wage reforms—there is minimal thematic overlap beyond general union-related policy."

Key themes:labor unionsunion member rightslabor dispute resolution

— 603 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies decision-making is required under the law, basing this theory on an old NLRB case, Joy Silk, even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected mandatory card-check recognition. l Discard “card check.” Congress should discard “card check” as the basis of union recognition and mandate the secret ballot exclusively. Contract Bar Rule. Although current labor law allows a union to establish itself at a workplace at more or less any time, the calendar for any attempt to decertify a union is considerably more constrained. If a union is recognized as a collective bargaining agent, then employees may not decertify it or substitute another union for it for at least one year under federal law (the “certification bar”). Similarly, when a union reaches a collective bargaining agreement with an employer, it is immune from a decertification election for up to three years (the “contract bar”). A typical consequence of these rules is that employees must often wait four years before they are allowed a chance at decertification. Employees then have only a 45-day window to file a decertification petition; if the employer and union sign a successor contract, then the contract bar comes into play once again—meaning employees with an interest in decertification must wait another three years. l Eliminate the contract bar rule. NLRB should eliminate the contract bar rule so that employees with an interest in decertification have a reasonable chance to achieve their goal. Tailoring National Employment Rules. National employment laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)21 and the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act22 set out one-size-fits-all “floors” regulating the employment rela- tionship. These substantive worker protections often do not mesh well with the procedural worker protections offered through the NLRA’s collective bargaining process. Unions could play a powerful role in tailoring national employment rules to the needs of a particular workplace if, in unionized workplaces, national rules were treated as negotiable defaults rather than non-negotiable floors. l Congress should amend the NLRA to authorize collective bargaining to treat national employment laws and regulations as negotiable defaults. For example, this reform would allow a union to bless a relaxed overtime trigger (e.g., 45 hours a week, or 80 hours over two weeks) in exchange for firm employer commitments on predictable scheduling. Alternative Policy. While some conservatives (including the author of this chap- ter) believe that it would be a mistake to antagonize unions’ core interests, others — 604 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise argue that the next Administration should end Project Labor Agreement require- ments and repeal the Davis–Bacon Act. And while some conservatives have chosen not to address massive federal subsidies for unionized labor, others believe that current laws and regulations that pick winners and losers to the detriment of the majority of construction workers and to all taxpayers should not be ignored. Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are short-term collective bargaining agreements that apply to construction projects. There are a few reasons that con- struction projects may benefit from a PLA, and there are many reasons that even when actively encouraged to do so public construction projects have declined to use PLAs. Among the consequences: The majority of construction firms and construction workers are not unionized and their temporary forced unionization results in large-scale wage theft; construction companies are significantly less likely to bid on projects with PLAs; and PLAs consistently drive up construction costs by 10 percent to 30 percent. The Davis–Bacon Act23 requires federally financed construction projects to pay “prevailing wages.” In theory, these wages should reflect going market rates for construction labor in the relevant area. However, both the Government Account- ability Office and the Department of Labor’s Inspector General have repeatedly criticized the Labor Department for using self-selected, statistically unrepresenta- tive samples to calculate the prevailing-wage rates that drive up the cost of federal construction by about 10 percent. The Davis–Bacon Act redistributes wealth from hardworking Americans to those that benefit from government-funded construc- tion projects. Repealing the Davis–Bacon Act would increase worker freedom and end a longstanding effective tax on American families. l End PLA requirements. Agencies should end all mandatory Project Labor Agreement requirements and base federal procurement decisions on the contractors that can deliver the best product at the lowest cost. l Repeal Davis–Bacon. Congress should enact the Davis–Bacon Repeal Act and allow markets to determine market wages. THE STATES Worker-led Benefits Experimentation. Workers depend on unemployment benefits to navigate inevitable market frictions and seek new employment oppor- tunities. But existing unemployment insurance (UI) is bureaucratic, ineffective, and unaccountable. The outdated system’s myriad failures during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for innovations that respond to recipients’ needs. The most promising avenue for innovation is to involve workers and private-sec- tor organizations more directly, freed from unnecessary bureaucratic strictures. Americans take for granted that unemployment benefits must be administered by

Department of Labor and Related Agencies

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 630-632AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on union members' access to legal remedies by removing internal hearing requirements, while Project 2025's labor section emphasizes UI fraud prevention, worker voice through non-union models, and union transparency—there is minimal thematic overlap."

Key themes:Department of Laborlabor unionsworker representation

— 598 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise unemployment programs were defrauded of hundreds of billions of dollars, includ- ing by state-sponsored hacking groups. Not all state agencies are yet through their backlogs of appeals and fraud cases; the recovery of lost funds has been minimal; and fraud has now spilled into the traditional UI programs. The CARES Act era drastically altered the entire UI ecosystem: The federal–state partnership shifted toward federal programs and funding, and the social insurance purpose of the program was disconnected as benefits were extended, expanded to more typically uncovered populations, and made exponentially larger. l Congress should enact bipartisan commonsense UI program reforms, including statutory authority for the Labor Office of Inspector General (OIG) to access all state UI records for the purposes of investigation and requiring state agencies to crossmatch applicants with the National Directory of New Hires. l Congress should also develop a framework (through commission of a congressional report to serve as a blueprint) of technical standards on broader tech topics like usability, state agency cybersecurity postures, data taxonomy standardization, and/or identity verification standards. l Congress should provide DOL with more reasonable enforcement tools for the UI system. Currently, DOL can either send a strongly worded letter or revoke the entire Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA)16 tax credit, which would place an immediate 6 percent to 7 percent tax on all covered employers. l DOL should review all actual or planned procurements against the $2 billion (under the American Rescue Plan Act)17 for UI fraud detection, accessibility, and equity investments. These funds do not have appropriations timelines and have very minimal statutory descriptions of the intended purpose. DOL should also review and propose changes to improve state monitoring programs including developing evidence-based frameworks for evaluating the technical readiness and security postures of the state agencies; strengthen its relationship with the OIG and Government Accountability Office (GAO), and support continued development of fraud prosecution with DOJ, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the financial services community; ensure administrative and IT funding is outcome-based; and gather and publish best practices from state officials, industry partners, and other vendors who deliver UI services. — 599 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies WORKER VOICE AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Non-Union Worker Voice and Representation. American workers lack a meaningful voice in today’s workplace. Between 50 percent and 60 percent of workers have less influence than they want on critical workplaces issues beyond pay and benefits. Even managers are twice as likely to say their employees have too little influence rather than too much. But America’s one-size-fits-all approach undermines worker representation. Federal labor law offers no alternatives to labor unions whose politicking and adversarial approach appeals to few, whereas most workers report that they prefer a more cooperative model run jointly with management that focuses solely on workplace issues. The next Administration should make new options available to workers and push Congress to pass labor reforms that create non-union “employee involvement organizations” as well as a mechanism for worker representation on corporate boards. l Congress should reintroduce and pass the Teamwork for Employees and Managers (TEAM) Act of 2022.18 The TEAM Act: 1. Reforms the National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) Section 8(a)(2) prohibition on formal worker–management cooperative organizations like works councils. 2. Creates an “Employee Involvement Organization” (EIO) to facilitate voluntary cooperation on critical issues like working conditions, benefits, and productivity. 3. Amends labor law to allow EIOs at large, publicly traded corporations to elect a non-voting, supervisory member of their company’s board of directors. Alternative View. While some conservatives lament that workers lack sufficient voice in today’s workplace, others interpret the rise in independent and flexible work opportunities, significant expansion in family-friendly policies like paid family leave, and the decline in private sector unionization as indicators of workers’ increasing competency and control. Another way to help expand workers’ freedom and voices in traditional workplaces is by allowing them to choose who represents them in negotiations with their employer. The Worker’s Choice Act19 would accom- plish this by ending exclusive representation so that unions in right-to-work states are no longer forced to represent workers who do not want to join them. Union Transparency. Private-sector unions must file detailed financial infor- mation with DOL—on matters including union spending, income, loans, assets, membership information, and employee salary—but unions composed entirely

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Harris, Mark

To make technical amendments to update statutory references to provisions reclassified to title 34, United States Code, and to correct related technical errors.

119/hr/4499

Less Bureaucracy, Better K–12 Education Act

119/hr/9610

Less Bureaucracy, Better Higher Education Act

119/hr/9611

Back to All Bills

Fair Access to Justice for Union Members Act