Skip to main content

Uproar As U-Haul Uses Its Employees In Effort to Reverse Ambush Election Rule


Back in 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (‘NLRB’) implemented a new rule, known as the ‘ambush election rule’, that shortended the time between when a union election would occur.  In changing the median from 38 days to 23 days before an election occurred, employers were left scrambling as they had little time to prevent unions from winning workplace elections.  (The common thought is the less time that is allowed before an election can occur is typically good for unions as employers have less time to launch a campaign against unionization).

However, back in December, the NLRB announced that it was seeking public input as to whether the rule should remain in place, be modified, or rescinded entirely.  Unsurprisingly, employers and pro-business groups jumped at the chance to weigh in against the rule.  What has caught the most attention, however, is the fact that dozens of U-Haul employees have recently submitted letters to the NLRB asking the rule be rescinded.  This alone might not draw a lot of attention (or criticism) from unions and pro-labor groups.  But when it became known that many of the letters from these U-Haul employees contained the same wording and phrases, people started to dig deeper.  It turns out that U-Haul acknowledged that while it did not compel employees to write a letter to the NLRB, the company did encourage employees to do so and even provided them with sample language to use in their letters.

This tactic has come under fire from some groups that have claimed it is further evidence of U-Haul’s anti union efforts that stretches out over the past few years.  (U-Haul apparently has a reputation for being tough on unions and has previously fought against unionization at some of its repair facilities where employees attempted to unionize.  After shutting down a location, terminating 49 employees, and refusing to collectively bargain with the union, U-Haul was sued in 2007.  The company ended up paying nearly $2 million to resolve the claim that it wrongfully terminated the employees but the company admitted no wrong doing).

I doubt whether the letters from these U-Haul employees (or U-Haul’s involvement) will tip the scales either way.  With the NLRB having a majority control by Republican appointed Board members, something tells me the ambush election rule is likely to be rescinded in its entirety in the coming months.  With that being said, these letters and U-Haul’s involvement has certainly raised a lot of eyebrows as of late.


For additional information:  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-02/the-newest-weapons-against-unions-are-employees

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