A battle between labor and business over a law to make it easier for employees to unionize is shaping up to become one of the biggest legislative fights of the year, both sides say.

Labor leaders say the Employee Free Choice Act is their No. 1 legislative priority. The bill would allow workers to unionize by signing a card or petition, in lieu of a secret-ballot election and would impose time limits on bargaining. Business leaders argue the bill tilts the field in labor’s favor and inserts government into contract negotiations.

“We are here to let you know today, that this is organized labor's No. 1 on the agenda," said Dennis Gannon, president of the Chicago Federation of Labor, this week.

Industry representatives put equal importance on the dispute.

"We think this will be one of the most significant debates [of the year],” said Brian Turmail, spokesman for the Associated General Contractors of America. “This debate will be about whether decisions will be made in places like Peoria or Greensboro, or in Washington."

The bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2007, but a Republican filibuster blocked a vote in the Senate.

“I would urge my colleagues in the Senate to move ahead and act,” said U.S. Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Chicago), who spoke in support of the bill this week.

Employees have had the right to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act since 1935. Under the law, workers seeking union representation must show they have the support of 30 percent of employees in order to petition for a secret ballot vote. If a majority of employees vote to organize, the union becomes their representative in bargaining with the company.

The Employee Free Choice Act would amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow the ease of card signup to unionize.

"Through the Employee Free Choice Act we can level the playing field. That's all organized labor is asking to do, level the playing field and make it more conducive for us to organize workers that want to be organized," Gannon said.

Loss of the privacy afforded to employees through a secret ballot election has inspired much of the disagreement over the Employee Free Choice Act.

"No. 1, it strips Illinois workers of the right to the private ballot," said Jim Nelson, vice president of communications for the Illinois Manufacturers Association. "The big thing is the privacy. It upends 75 years of labor law and throws it out of the window."

Peter Fotos of the Heartland Institute, a Libertarian free-market think tank based in Chicago, said, "We would like to protect secret ballot elections for workers instead of promoting legislation aimed at promoting union membership and nothing else,"

"We are more concerned with the privacy and rights of the workers, than the privacy and rights of the union," Fotos said.

Labor leaders say organizing through sign up instead of secret ballot works, pointing to an Illinois law that gives public employees that option.

"Public employees in Illinois have been able to join a union through majority sign up for more than a decade, and in all that time there has never been a complaint about the majority sign up procedure," said Roberta Lynch, deputy director of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Council 3l.

"It works and it works well for workers who want to form a union," Lynch said.

Other provisions of the bill are also a source of friction between labor and business.

The bill would require employers to begin discussions with the workers’ union within 10 days of its certification and reach an agreement within 90 days. If an agreement isn’t reached in that time, either party can enlist the services of a federal mediator. After 30 days of mediation, a federal arbitrator will decide the union contract terms for two years.

Under existing law there is no time limit, but the national median for holding secret ballot elections is 42 days after a petition has been filed, according to the National Labor Relations Board. Stipulations between parties can add a considerable amount of time before an election can be held.

"It can be a very lengthy process between the time the petition is filed and when the election is ordered, which gives employers a chance to intimidate workers," said Michael J. Zimmer, professor of law at Loyola University Chicago, who specializes in labor and employment issues.

Even after an election is held, there is no time limit for negotiating a contract, nor a requirement that an agreement be reached.

"There is no hard and fast rule on a time and place, or on how long it should take for the parties to come to an agreement," said Joseph Barker, regional director of region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board.

Nancy Boothby of Effingham, said the time limit proposed by the Employee Free Choice Act would have had her back to work months ago.

Boothby and her colleagues have been on strike from Heartland Human Services, a mental illness and drug rehabilitation center in Effingham, since July 2007. Boothby's union and the management at Heartland Human Services have not been able to come to an agreement.

"Basically what they've done is they haven't been showing up for negotiations, I mean they stall and they stall, and they stall," Boothby said.

Cheryl Compton, executive director of Heartland Human Services said, "That is certainly not correct. … The fact that we are negotiating strongly for our position does not mean we are not negotiating. We're just not agreeing with what they want."

Employers also object to the possibility of a federal arbitrator determining union contracts for businesses.

"We strongly oppose a requirement in the legislation that would hand all employee/employer negotiations to a federally mandated mediator," said Turmail, spokesman for the general contractors group.

His position was echoed by another industry representative.

"By allowing the government to come in and unilaterally institute contract terms, it would be [detrimental] to a business, especially in these economic times," said Michael Petricone, spokesman for the Consumer Electronics Association.

"We are very concerned. We don't think it's a good thing for the economy, business or the tech industry," Petricone said.