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a 3 - 2 majority of Republican appointed Board members, attention turned to whether the ‘ambush election rule’ would be rescinded, amended, or remain in place.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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
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