Skip to main content

Public Comment Period On ‘Ambush Election Rule' Closes With a Fury


If readers recall, the National Labor Relations Board (‘NLRB’) had previously implemented what has become known as the ‘ambush election rule’.  This rule drastically shortened the period when a union election can occur, from a standard 38 days to as little as 10 or 11 days.  Employers and pro business groups cried foul after the rule went into effect in April 2015 and argued the rule improperly prohibited employers from educating their employees as to the negatives of unionization prior to an election occurring.  With such a tight window between when a petition is filed and when the election can occur as to whether to unionize, employers pointed out that much of their time would be spent on legal strategy rather than attempting to present counter arguments to what a union told employees about unionization.

When the NLRB assumed a 3 - 2 majority of Republican appointed Board members, attention turned to whether the ‘ambush election rule’ would be rescinded, amended, or remain in place.  Before making any decision, the NLRB opened up a public comment period to solicit comments from any party on what to do with the rule.

The public comment period closed last Wednesday and there was a flurry of activity toward the tail end of the period.  (Readers might recall the uproar earlier this month after it became known that U-Haul took steps to help its employees submit comments in opposition to the rule, including providing wording for employees to use in their letters).  Two members of Congress (Republican Representative Virginia Foxx and Republican Senator Lamar Alexander) submitted a letter urging the NLRB to rescind the rule in its entirety.  The National Retail Federation, a pro employer group, issued a letter to the NLRB and argued the rule ‘disregarded basic notions of due process’ and ‘impacted the ability to properly determine the appropriateness of the bargaining unit’.  The National Grocers Association also submitted a similar letter last Wednesday and urged the NLRB to rescind the rule on the grounds that the rule prohibits a full and fair hearing on unionization before an election occurs.  As well, NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb suggested the Board would be better served modifying the rule but not rescinding it entirely.

Not to be outdone, General Counsel for the Laborers’ International Union of North America submitted a letter to the NLRB last Tuesday and urged the Board to uphold rhe rule, based in part on the suggestion that it was unnecessary to establish a minimum period before an election could occur.

It is expected the NLRB will make a decision as to the future of the ‘ambush election rule’ sometime later this year.  I doubt the rule will remain in place as it is currently written.  I think it is more likely the NLRB will amend portions of it or simply rescind it in its entirety.  

Stay tuned.

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