Skip to main content

NLRB Scales Back ‘Ambush Election Rule’


Last Friday, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) announced it was had finalized a change to the rules in regard to union elections and how quickly they can occur.

Readers will recall that since the ‘Ambush Election Rule’ came into effect in 2015, employers have cried foul over how quickly a union election can occur (which often leaves employers limited time in which to mount a campaign against unionization.)  The ’Ambush Election Rule’ allows a union election to occur as quickly as 13 days from the date a petition is filed.  Needless to say, this short timeframe has been viewed as more favorable to unions in so much as they can quickly get an election without employees often hearing the ‘other side’ from their employers.

Following the NLRB assuming a more Republican tilt in recent years, attention had turned to when, not if, changes would be made.  With last Friday’s announcement, the NLRB announced that while it was not scrapping the ’Ambush Election Rule’ in its entirety, it was significantly scaling it back.  Of note:  1) the pre-election hearing will generally be scheduled 14 business days from the notice of hearing (rather than the current 8 calendar days); 2) the notice of petition for election will be posted within 5 business days after the notice of hearing (rather than the current 2 business days); 3) the non-petitioning party will have 8 business days after the notice of hearing to file a statement of petition (rather than the current 7 calendar days); and 4) union elections will not be scheduled before the 20th business day after the direction of election (rather than the current rules which allow an election to occur as soon as 13 days.)

I call attention in particular to how the NLRB has changed a lot of the timeframes from calendar days to business days.  So just because a timeframe is now 14 business days does not mean that window will close in 14 days.

These changes to the ’Ambush Election Rule’ should be favorable, and well received, among employers.  These changes are set to go into effect April 16, 2020 (120 days after the changes are published in the Federal Register.)


For additional information:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.natlawreview.com/article/labor-board-dials-back-ambush-election-rules%3famp

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