Last week, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R- Ga., co-sponsored legislation to prohibit the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) from dictating where private companies may do business. This legislation comes in reaction to the National Labor Relations Board’s decision to block Boeing from opening a plant in South Carolina because of its right-to-work status.

The legislation, S.964, theJob Protection Act, also would preserve federal protections of state right-to-work laws. Twenty-two states, including Georgia, have right-to-work clauses that protect employees from the threat of losing their jobs if they chose to either join or refrain from joining a union.

“I find it incomprehensible that the NLRB would go as far to insert itself into the business decisions of a private company.This is an example of extreme overreach by the agency that sets a disturbing precedent,”said Sen. Chambliss.“This legislation isn’t just about South Carolina – the NLRB’s decision is a threat against every business in America. It is critical that employers have the right to decide where to do business within the United States, without interference from Washington’s unelected bureaucrats. TheJob Protection Actensures this right.”

The legislation, which was introduced by Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Jim DeMint, R-S.C., comes in response to the complaint filed by the National Labor Relation Board against Boeing. The NLRB’s decision on Boeing stated that unionized companies cannot bring facilities into states with right-to-work laws, and thatBoeing sought to punish labor unions by opening a second 787 plant in South Carolina, which is a right-to-work state, rather than putting it at a unionized plant in Washington state, where the original 787 plant is located. Boeing has disputed the NLRB complaint, and attorneys general from eight states – including Georgia – have sent a letter to the NLRB decrying its action against Boeing.

Specifically, theJob Protection Actwould clarify that the NLRB could not order an employer to relocate jobs from one location to another, would guarantee an employer the right to decide where to do business within the United States, and would protect an employer’s free speech regarding the costs associated with having a unionized workforce without fear of such communication being used as evidence in an anti-union discrimination claim.