As the AP reports, my emphasis:

A Senate panel has narrowly approved the nomination of union lawyer Craig Becker to become a member of the National Labor Relations Board...Republicans claim that Becker would make pro-union changes on the NLRB without congressional approval. The 13-10 party line vote in committee sends Becker's nomination to the Senate floor, where a vote could come as soon as next week.

Any one else making that claim? How about union chief Stewart Acuff? (h/t LaborUnionReport):

It we aren't able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action...

Which is why Becker's appointment to the NLRB is "the highest priority for organized labor..." and why the U.S. Chamber urged:

the Committee to oppose reporting to the full Senate the President’s nomination of Craig Becker to serve as a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). While the Chamber applauds you for holding a hearing on Mr. Becker’s controversial nomination, the Chamber opposes his confirmation. The Chamber does not take this step lightly. This is only the third time in more than 30 years that this organization has opposed a nominee to the Board, most recently the 1993 nomination of William B. Gould.

Mr. Becker has written prolifically about the National Labor Relations Act, the law he would be charged with interpreting and enforcing should he be confirmed. Many of the positions taken in his writings are well outside the mainstream and would disrupt years of established precedent and the delicate balance in current labor law. These positions have raised significant concerns in the employer community.

While this week’s hearing began to examine some of these important questions, too many concerns remain for employers to be comfortable with this nomination. Among those concerns are the extent to which Mr. Becker would restrictively interpret employers’ free speech rights and the extent to which he would seek to expand the use of intermittent strikes and other forms of work stoppages that disrupt the right of employers to maintain operations during labor disputes.