Conservative groups press NLRB members for recusal in lawsuit by SEIU, their former employer

A coalition of nine conservative groups on Tuesday asked two Biden-appointed members of the National Labor Relations Board to recuse themselves from a major case involving their former employer, the powerful Service Employees International Union.

In a letter to the NLRB, the groups said board members David Prouty and Gwynne Wilcox in the pending case brought by the SEIU have “troubling conflicts of interest” that undermine the agency’s “commitment to impartiality.”

“Taxpayers and consumers deserve an NLRB that does not put its thumb on the scale for political purposes,” wrote the groups, which include Heritage Action, the National Taxpayers Union and the FreedomWorks Foundation.

Mr. Prouty served as general counsel for SEIU Local 32BJ from 2017 until last June, when President Biden appointed him to the NLRB.

Ms. Wilcox served as associate general counsel of 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East.

Their Senate confirmations in July gave Democrats control of the five-member board, which is expected to reverse a slew of Trump-era labor rules.

The SEIU is the nation’s second-largest union and, with its PAC, is a major donor to Democratic candidates, including about $8 million for the Biden campaign in 2020.

NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran, responding to criticism from Republican lawmakers about the alleged conflicts, announced last month that the agency’s designated ethics official told Mr. Prouty and Ms. Wilcox that they may participate in the NLRB’s decision involving a lawsuit filed by the SEIU.

Ms. McFerran said they have an obligation “to faithfully fulfill our role as board members when, as here, participation in the board’s deliberations is appropriate.”

The SEIU is challenging a Trump-era rule on “joint employment,” which makes it harder for parent companies to be held liable for labor violations committed by franchisees.

The SEIU wants a new ruling by the NLRB that would make it easier for unions to sue large corporations when franchisees violate labor laws.

Mr. Prouty and Ms. Wilcox said last month they would not recuse themselves, and Tuesday’s letter asked them to reconsider.

The NLRB’s decisions on recusals have come under fire previously.

In 2018, a report by NLRB Inspector General David Berry cited “serious and flagrant” problems with the board’s ethics procedures, saying that members can take part in rulings that indirectly help former clients, as long as the client isn’t a party in the case.

The board also vacated a 2017 decision after finding that a Trump appointee, William Emanuel, should not have taken part in a landmark ruling tied to his former law firm.

The conservative groups seeking the recusals in the SEIU case noted that Mr. Prouty signed on to the union’s letter in 2019 in opposition to the Trump joint employer rule that he will now review.

Among Ms. Wilcox’s former clients was an SEIU-affiliated group called “Fight for $15,” which filed lawsuits opposing the Trump-era joint-employer laws.

“It is critical that independent federal agencies, especially those with sweeping power over the U.S. economy like the NLRB, act in a fair manner that upholds the law without preference towards organized labor or employers,” the groups wrote.

“This is especially relevant as organized labor is lobbying for more power through unprecedented increases of civil penalties in the H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act and H.R. 842, the devastating Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act,” they wrote.

The NLRB did not respond to a request for comment about the letter from the conservative groups.

In announcing last month that Mr. Prouty and Ms. Wilcox would not recuse themselves, the NLRB said its ethics official “found that no applicable ethics statute, regulation, or other provision required Member Wilcox or Member Prouty to recuse themselves from the board’s consideration of and response to the lawsuit.”

The board said its decision was “based on an assessment of the relevant facts, their participation would not raise appearance concerns about lack of impartiality.”