NLRB’s New Quickie Elections May Allow for Union Ambush Tactics

15 December 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

The National Labor Relations Board certainly did not wait long to take the next step in changing the landscape of union organizing to promote the success of labor interests in representation campaigns. Only one day after its blockbuster decision, opening up employer email systems to largely unimpeded use for union organizing purposes, the Board changed its election procedures in a step likely to confer substantial advantages to unions in organizing campaigns. As it signaled it intended to do earlier this year, on December 12, 2014, the Board officially rewrote its election regulations in a 3 – 2 vote — based strictly on party lines to purportedly “streamline” the election process — by allowing for much faster union elections after a representation petition is filed. While the democratically-appointed Board majority has claimed these changes will “remove unnecessary barriers to the fair and expeditious resolution of questions concerning representation” — although the Board’s own statistics show it has repeatedly met its own published timetables for holding elections — many in the employer community have viewed the changes as effectively green-lighting “ambush elections,” allowing a union to file for and win an election before an employer has the realistic opportunity to oppose unionization and prepare effective (and legally compliant) responses to propaganda circulated during an organizing campaign.

In addition to speeding up the election timetable, the amended Board elections rules now also controversially require employers to turn over to a union a voting list that includes not only names and addresses of eligible voters, but also personal telephone numbers and emails addresses of voting employees. The Board dismissed the privacy concerns relating to the forced disclosure of such information — without allowing for any employee to opt out of having his or her information disclosed to a union — as purportedly outweighed by the need to adopt the election process to modern communications.

As noted, these amendments come with substantial opposition and criticism from employers, and after the NLRB first failed to implement these changes years earlier. The Obama-era NLRB first attempted to “streamline” its election procedures in December 2011, when a different democratically-appointed Board majority tried to usher through these same election changes, only to have the effort fall to a successful legal challenge focusing on the Board’s failure to follow proper procedures. Three years later, in the face of the two current Republican-appointed members of the Board’s dissent, asserting that an employer’s ability to communicate with its employees only has meaning if the employer has time to actually communicate in a careful and proper manner with its employees, the Board majority pushed through the changes over alternate proposals that the dissenting members said would win unanimous Board support.

Several employer groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, issued statements in response to the changes, criticizing the new election rules and procedures and indicating they were considering potential legal challenges. As a consequence, it may be that there will be more to come on this front before the new election rules and procedures become effective on April 14, 2015. In the interim, we can surely expect more tension between employer interests and the Board, as well as concerns regarding the increasing politicization of an agency which, according to Tennessee Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, “was established to be an impartial umpire in labor disputes, but has grown into an advocate of whichever party has the White House.”

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
20 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
The Purpose of a Corporation
November 2019
Legal News: Business Law
Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
Data Processing Patent Eligibility: Federal Circuit Finds Claims Eligible in KPN v. Gemalto
19 November 2019
IP Litigation Current
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
12 December 2019
Boston, MA