As America approaches the 91^st anniversary of President Roosevelt signing the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) into law, potentially massive changes to the collective bargaining process may be coming.  For nearly 91 years the federal government has resisted putting hard deadlines on employers and labor unions to reach a collective bargaining agreement.  Rather, under Section 8(d), 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3) of the NLRA, parties must bargain in good faith and “meet at reasonable times and reasonable intervals.”  Likewise, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) typically does not and cannot “force” employers or labor unions to agree to any substantive proposal that the other party submits during collective bargaining.  This “reasonableness” legal standard affords parties considerable leeway to conduct collective bargaining.  Indeed, sometimes parties can go years without reaching a collective bargaining agreement.  Some parties never reach a collective bargaining agreement.

Labor unions attacked this standard for decades in pursuit of additional government guardrails on collective bargaining.  For example, Democratic Congressman George Miller proposed the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007.  The law proposed that, if bargaining was unsuccessful for 90 days, either party could request mediation.  And if mediation was unsuccessful, the contract dispute would proceed to binding arbitration.  The 2007 law passed the House of Representatives, but did not become law.  In 2016, Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson proposed the Employee Free Choice Act of 2016.  That bill died in a subcommittee.  In 2017, Democratic Congressman Gene Green proposed the Labor Relations First Contract Negotiations Act of 2017, which proposed mediation and, if no agreement was reached at mediation, binding arbitration to resolve initial collective bargaining negotiations.  The House ultimately never voted on the bill. 

Moving to present day, Democratic Congressman Donald Norcross introduced the Faster Labor Contracts Act.  Earlier this month, the Faster Labor Contracts Act passed the Republican majority House of Representatives by a vote of 230-193.  It creates the following obligations:

• After certification or recognition, and after a written request from the newly recognized or certified bargaining representative, bargaining must occur within 10 days of that request;
• After 90 days of bargaining without a successful contract, either party can request mediation;
• If no agreement occurs at mediation and 30 days pass, the case is referred to binding arbitration before three arbitrators (unless the parties agree otherwise);
• A majority of the three-arbitrator panel imposes a binding two-year collective bargaining agreement (unless the parties agree otherwise).

If enacted, this law would create a seismic shift in the way collective bargaining is conducted.  It would be three arbitrators deciding employees’ terms and conditions of employment rather than the employer and a labor union.  These dramatic and artificially short deadlines would create considerable time constraints on employers.  Make no mistake, this law would materially reduce an employer’s leverage in initial collective bargaining negotiations and it is opposed by several business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  (Source:  https://www.uschamber.com/employment-law/key-vote-letter-opposing-h-r-5408-the-faster-labor-contracts-act ).  Note, however, that the bill would likely bypass labor unions’ ordinary ratification process; the arbitrators would determine terms and conditions of employment.

Labor unions, on the other hand, have supported the bill since its inception.  The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, one of the largest labor unions in the country, called the bill a “Teamsters-led bill that could become the strongest new labor legislation for American workers in generations.” (Source:  https://teamster.org/2026/06/teamsters-led-faster-labor-contracts-act-passes-u-s-house-with-bipartisan-support/).  Teamsters General President Sean M. O’Brien stated “The Faster Labor Contracts Act is the most consequential labor bill to come before Congress in decades.  Its bipartisan passage out of the House of Representatives is a significant milestone for millions of American Workers.”

The bill now moves to the Republican majority Senate.  Notably, however, a companion Senate bill (844) already exists and is sponsored by Republican Senator Josh Hawley.  Several notable Democrats also co-sponsor the Senate companion bill, including Senator Cory Booker.  While the bill, if called for a vote, may receive a majority of votes, it is unclear whether the bill could overcome a filibuster.  Due to the filibuster rules, it will likely need 60 yes votes in the Senate to pass. 

That will be a difficult, but not impossible task.  Presumably, at least three Republicans will support the bill due to their sponsorship or co-sponsorship of the Senate companion bill (Senator Hawley, Senator Moreno, Senator Marshall).  Assuming all Democrat senators voted in favor of the bill, a total of 13 Republicans would need to vote in favor in order to defeat the filibuster and reach 60 votes.  Reaching 60 votes remains possible, but is not a certainty at this time.

Assuming it passes the Senate, it would proceed to President Trump’s desk for signature.  This is where things would get really interesting.  Historically, one might assume a Republican president would not sign this piece of legislation.  But recall that the Teamsters did not endorse Vice President Harris in the 2024 election.  This was the first time the Teamsters skipped a presidential endorsement since 1996.  Recall that blue collar voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin were also key reasons why President Trump won both the 2016 and 2024 elections.  Consider also that if the bill gets to President Trump’s desk, it will have done so with bipartisan Republican support in the Senate and House.  While some employer-side labor lawyers believe his signature is probable, it remains unclear whether President Trump would sign the law if it reaches his desk.  And even if he signs it, anticipate significant constitutional challenges to the law.

Ultimately, major changes to the collective bargaining process remain possible, but not inevitable.  The FLCA would be a massive win for labor unions in our country.  But despite momentum, the FLCA still has a significant (but not insurmountable) hurdle in the Senate.  And the jury is still out on whether President Trump would sign it into law.