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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more