Conflicts of Interest? NLRB General Counsel Appoints Union-Side Lawyer to Regional Director for Chicago and Vicinity
Conflicts of Interest? NLRB General Counsel Appoints Union-Side Lawyer to Regional Director for Chicago and Vicinity
On Monday, NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo announced the the appointment of Angie Cowan Hamada to serve as the Regional Director for the Agency’s Region 13 office, in Chicago, Illinois.
“Angie is a brilliant labor lawyer who has dedicated her career to protecting workers’ rights. The Agency is excited to welcome her to Region 13, where I know she will thrive in her new role leading the Region in fully effectuating the vital mission of the National Labor Relations Act,” stated General Counsel Abruzzo in her announcement.
What about potential conflicts of interest?
While it is not uncommon for union-side attorneys to work for the National Labor Relations Board—indeed, just prior to her appointment as General Counsel, Ms. Abruzzo served as “Special Counsel for Strategic Initiatives for the Communications Workers of America”—it poses a number of interesting questions as to whether an individual coming directly from private practice (as Ms. Cowan Hamada appears to be) will be able to serve effectively without the need to recuse herself from deciding cases involving former clients.
Although this could be an issue regardless of ‘which side’ the attorney comes from, part of the problem with union-side attorneys going straight from private-practice advocacy to a decision-maker role with the NLRB—as compared to an employer-side attorney—unions are almost always more frequent users of the NLRB’s services than singular employers. Unions are, in sum, the NLRB’s most “frequent customers.”
As a result of this, there would be greater likelihood that a union-side attorney would represent more union clients in more matters against more employers before the NLRB than would a management-side attorney.
For example, according to her law firm bio, Angie Cowan Hamada “primarily represents labor unions, employees, and benefit funds. Angie is a shareholder at Allison, Slutsky & Kennedy, where she has practiced law since 2005.”
Angie is an experienced advocate for both private and public sector unions in collective bargaining negotiations; arbitrations regarding the interpretation of contracts and disciplinary/ termination grievances; in matters before the National Labor Relations Board, Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board and Illinois Labor Relations Board, as well as other federal, state and local agency proceedings; and state and federal court litigation and appeals. Angie also advises unions on strategic planning, organizing drives, strikes, contract enforcement, draft legislation, and internal issues including: labor-management issues, union bylaw and constitution amendments, officer/member/steward training, officer elections, reporting requirements, and conducts internal investigations. Angie has represented individual employees in a variety of employment matters, and has represented jointly trusteed benefit funds on collection matters in federal court.
“Prior to law school,” her bio concludes, “Angie worked for UNITE HERE Local 35 and the Greater New Haven Central Labor Council prior to attending law school. During law school, Angie was a Peggy Browning Fellow where she interned at the Chicago Newspaper Guild, and she was also a participant in the AFL-CIO’s Law Student Union Summer program during which she worked with the United Steelworkers of America.
Questions over Conflicts of Interest
Should Regional Directors be required to recuse themselves from cases involving former clients?
Although one would hope that an individual like Cowan Hamada—or any other Regional Director or Assistant Regional Director—would administer their duties as without bias, the fact that there is a recusal list for the members of the National Labor Relations Board raises the question as to whether Regional Directors should automatically recuse themselves from cases involving former clients.
If an employer, for example, gets an unfavorable ruling from a Regional Director with ties to a former client, it would seem this would automatically establish grounds for an appeal and, as a result, delay any proceedings the NLRB might wish to undertake expeditiously—be it an election, or an unfair labor practice.
This most recently stymied the National Labor Relations Board under the Trump administration when, in 2020, the House Committee on Education and Labor filed a subpoena against the NLRB for records about potential conflicts of interest among board members.
Although the most recent claims of conflicts of interest have occurred against the appointees of former President Donald Trump, they were politicized while Democrats held the House of Representatives.
If the mid-term elections in November result in Republicans regaining the House of Representatives, it would not be a stretch to imagine a Republlican-held House committee deploying the Democrats’ tactics against a Democrat-controlled NLRB.
Unless there are safeguards in place to limit conflicts of interest at the regional level as well, it is not far-fetched to see Republicans extend that strategy to the NLRB’s regions as well.