Skip to main content

NLRB: New Rules Issued For Ambush Elections in Representation Proceedings - With Update!


The National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") certainly had a busy end to 2014.  Notwithstanding the ground breaking ruling in Purple Communications which allows employees access to employer e-mail systems to engage in union organizing, the NLRB also issued new rules for ambush elections (or "quickie elections") in representation proceedings which means union elections are likely to occur within 21 days.  

The new rule, set to take effect on April 14, 2015, will drastically shorten the time between the filing of a certification petition and the conduct of an NLRB secret ballot election.  Note, the new rule does not require that an election occur within a certain period of time, but by overhauling the NLRB representation case procedures, I would expect it would reduce campaign time to 21 - 24 days, and maybe even less than that.  That ultimately means that union elections will occur at a much quicker pace and time frame than employers prefer. 

Perhaps one of the more important aspects of the new rule is that it eliminates pre-election evidentiary hearings and requests for review and defers decisions on virtually all issues in regard to appropriateness of units and voter eligibility now decided at the pre-election stage

The new rule also requires that employers provide unions with "Excelsior lists" which include telephone numbers (including cell phone numbers), e-mail addresses, in addition to employees' names and addresses.  This potentially will have a major impact as employers will now be required to turn over this information on their employees to unions, which unions can use for organizing purposes. 


Additional information can be found here:  http://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-issues-final-rule-modernize-representation-case-procedures

A link to the December 15, 2014 Federal Register which includes more details on the new ambush election/quickie election rules:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-15/pdf/2014-28777.pdf


UPDATE:  Two lawsuits have been filed recently to challenge the new quickie election rules, one in District Court for the District of Columbia and the other in District Court for the Western District of Texas.  

The suit filed in D.C. challenges thew new rules on the grounds that the NLRB exceeded its constitutional authority and violated the Administrative Procedures Act.  This first suit seeks an injunction to invalidate the new election rules.  


The suit filed in the Western District of Texas does not raise any constitutional violation but instead seeks an injunction that declares the quickie election rules invalid because 1) it conflicts with the Administrative Procedures Act, 2) the new rules conflict with the National Labor Relations Act, and 3) the new rules violate the privacy of employees by requiring personal information (phone numbers, e-mails, etc.) be turned over to the union.

A copy of the complaint for the Western District of Texas suit can be found here:  http://www.laborrelationstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/312/2015/01/ABC-v-NLRB-complaint.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more