Tag: NLRB

NLRB Appointments are “Constitutionally Invalid”

Dinsmore-2c-print NEW

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has invalidated the appointments of three members of the National Labor Relations Board who were designated on January 4, 2012. On January 25, 2013, the Court issued its ruling in Noel Canning v. NLRB, et al. Docket No. 12-1115.  http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/ 13E4C2A7B33B57A85257AFE00556B29/$file/12-1115-1417096.pdf. In Noel Canning, the employer sought to prohibit enforcement of a February 8, 2012 NLRB decision concluding it violated the National Labor Relations Act.

The Court granted the Petition of Noel Canning on the basis that the NLRB lacked a sufficient quorum of members when it reached its decision. In February 2012, the NLRB was putatively staffed with a full complement of five members. However, three of those members were appointed by the President, without confirmation by the Senate, on January 4, 2012. The NLRB maintained the appointments were legitimate “recess” appointments made while the Senate was out of session. The Petitioner argued that, in fact, the Senate was in pro forma session and as such, the President had no constitutional authority to make “recess appointments” of the NLRB members.

The D.C. Circuit agreed with the Petitioner that the President’s appointments were “constitutionally invalid.” As such, the Board did not have a “quorum for the conduct of business” on the date of its decision as only two members of the NLRB were properly seated.

The impact of the decision is likely substantial. In an appearance before the Oversight Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on February 1, 2012, Dinsmore Labor Practice Group Chair Mark Carter testified, that if the recess appointments on January 4, 2012 were determined to be improper “every administrative decision and every administrative rule or regulation implemented by the National Labor Relations Board will be subject to appeal or attack.” http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2-1-2012_Carter-Full.pdf.

Carter testified that if the appointments were invalidated, as they have been, “the actions of the NLRB will be ultra vires” and every decision and regulation will be subject to attack. The NLRB has been active both in the arenas of decision-making and regulatory action over the past year. If the decision of the D.C. Circuit is upheld, the decisions of the Agency since January 4, 2012 may have no mandatory impact on employers, unions or employees.

The NLRB reacted to the decision on the afternoon of January 25 by insisting that the remaining recess appointees, Richard Griffin and Sharon Block, will continue to perform their statutory duties and issue decisions along with Chairman Mark Pearce. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R – CA) called upon the NLRB to “take the responsible course and cease issuing further opinions until a constitutionally-sound quorum can be established.” Chairman Issa stated “(t)he unconstitutionally appointed members of the NLRB should do the right thing and step down.”

© 2013 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

NLRB Now Permits Front Pay in Lieu of Reinstatement in Board Settlements

The National Law Review recently published an article by John T.L. Koenig of Barnes & Thornburg LLP regarding A Recent NLRB Ruling:

Barnes & Thornburg

 

The National Labor Relations Board “NLRB” has traditionally refused to include the concept of front pay in lieu of reinstatement in formal Board settlements. As such, if an employer was interested in resolving an NLRB case that involved employee terminations, but not interested in bringing those terminated employees back to work, the only avenue was a non-Board settlement. That may change based on a new guidance memo the Acting General Counsel issued Jan. 9, 2013.

Noting that most agreements involving waivers of reinstatement in exchange for payment of front pay “are entirely non-Board” settlements, and that Agency policy should favor Board settlements, not discourage them, the AGC “decided to modify existing policy to permit Agency settlements to include front pay.” The Board’s Case Handling Manual will be revised to reflect this change. The updated manual instructs that offers of front pay in lieu of reinstatement be communicated to alleged discriminatees, but without pressuring them to waive reinstatement. The Region is “serving only as a conduit for the proposal” pursuant to the updated language in the Manual.

The memo also requires that waiver of reinstatement be in writing, unless otherwise authorized by Operations-Management in a particular case. The full memo with updated language in the Case Handling Manual can be found here.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

NLRB Mandates Wholesale Changes to Costco’s Social Media Policy

The National Law Review recently published an article by David M. Katz of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. regarding the NLRB and Costco:

 

There is no denying that the NLRB has recently devoted significant attention to employee’s use of social media.  Since August 2011, the Board’s Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, issued three reports outlining his view of how the NLRA applies to employers’ social media policies and employees’ social media postings.  Click here and here for our commentary on those GC reports and for links to the reports themselves.  Until earlier this month, however, the Board itself had not weighed in on social media policies.

On September 7, the NLRB issued a Decision and Order (which you can access here) invalidating Costco Wholesale Corporation’s electronic posting rule, found in its employee handbook, that prohibited employees from making statements that “damage the Company, defame any individual or damage any person’s reputation.”  With little analysis, the Board found Costco’s policy overly broad, concluding that “the rule would reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of their [NLRA] Section 7 rights,” as employees would “reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity.”  Section 7 of the NLRA provides to all employees—unionized and non-unionized—the right to engage in protected “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”  Such protected concerted activity includes, for example, the right to protest an employer’s treatment of its employees or other working conditions.

The Costco decision adopts the legal reasoning set forth in the three GC reports, much of which is based upon traditional principles developed prior to the advent of social media as we know it.  And, similar to the three GC reports, the Board’s decision in Costco fails to articulate any social media-specific criteria to assist employers in crafting policies that do not inhibit employee rights under the NLRA,  although it does offer a couple of hints.

First, the Board distinguished prior cases addressing rules prohibiting employee “conduct that is malicious, abusive or unlawful,” including rules concerning employees’ “verbal abuse,” “profane language,” “harassment,” and “conduct which is injurious, offensive, threatening, intimidating, coercing, or interfering with” other employees. Criticizing Costco’s electronic posting rule, the Board stated that its social media policy “does not present accompanying language that would tend to restrict its application.”  If Costco had been more specific, then, by providing examples of prohibited conduct, its policy may have passed muster.  .  In doing so, employers should focus on the types of electronic postings that they truly seek to prohibit, such as defamatory, harassing or other egregious comments, or disclosure of employer trade secrets, proprietary information, or co-workers’ private information.

The second hint dropped by the Board in Costco is the suggestion that an employer’s inclusion of a savings clause or disclaimer may protect the employer from allegations that a social media policy inhibits employees’ protected concerted activities.  The Board concluded that Costco’s “broad” prohibition against making statements that “damage the Company” or “damage any person’s reputation” “clearly encompasses concerted communications,” but continued by noting that “there is nothing in the rule that even arguably suggests that protected communications are excluded from the broad parameters of the rule.”  This statement signals that the Board may have found Costco’s electronic posting rule acceptable had the rule included language specifically exempting protected concerted activities under the NLRA, which is in contrast to the GC’s position on such savings clauses.

As we noted in our previous postings on the subject, in light of the Board’s clear stance on social media policies (now confirmed in its Costco decision), and its application to both unionized and non-unionized employers, we recommend that all employers rigorously review their social media policies to ensure that they do not contain “broad” prohibitions that would not survive NLRB scrutiny.

©1994-2012 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

The NLRB at it Again: Blanket Rules Prohibiting Employees from Discussing Ongoing Investigations Violates NLRA Absent “Legitimate and Substantial Justification”

An article by Eric E. Hobbs of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP regarding The NLRB recently appeared in The National Law Review:

 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) on July 30, 2012, held that a blanket rule prohibiting employees from discussing ongoing internal investigations – for example, of employee misconduct, harassment, or criminal conduct – violates the employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) absent “legitimate and substantial justification”.

In Banner Health System, the employer’s human resources consultant, as a matter of course, had asked employees involved in internal investigations not to discuss the investigation’s details, the employees’ roles or what had been said during the consultant’s interviews while the investigation continued. In particular, she had asked employee James Navarro, whom she had interviewed as a part of an insubordination investigation, to maintain his silence. Navarro then filed an unfair labor practice charge against the employer, alleging that the consultant’s request had violated his rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which protects, among other things, communications between employees regarding terms and conditions of employment.

The NLRB found merit to the charge and issued a complaint, which went to hearing before one of the NLRB’s administrative law judges. The judge found the employer’s conduct not to have violated Navarro’s Section 7 rights because the consultant’s request had been justified by the employer’s concern with protecting the integrity of its insubordination investigation.

The NLRB reversed its judge’s decision on that point. It held that, in order for an employer to justify a prohibition against employee communications regarding ongoing investigation, the employer must demonstrate the existence of a “substantial business justification” that outweighs the employees’ Section 7 rights. And a general concern with protecting the integrity of an investigation, according to the Board, was not substantial enough to meet the bar.

The Board gave examples of justifications that might qualify as sufficiently substantial to outweigh employees’ Section 7 rights: If a witness needed protection; if the employer reasonably believed that evidence might be destroyed or fabricated; or if maintenance of silence was necessary to prevent a “cover-up.” Notably, the Board did not say that those three circumstances were examples only, rather than an exclusive list of potentially adequate justifications. Our best educated guess is that they are examples only.

We do not have to guess, however, that the NLRB would find a blanket prohibition against communication by employees among themselves during the course of an ongoing employer investigation to be unlawful. In fact, a requirement of such silence in any case the employer cannot show substantial business justification for it will be found by the Board to violate the employer’s workers’ Section 7 rights.

The Board’s decision is not without support by its own precedent. In the late 1980s, the NLRB had held that it was unlawful under Section 7 of the Act for an employer to direct an employee who complained of sexual harassment not to talk to anyone other than her supervisors about the matter. The Board found that “anyone” could include the employee’s union representatives and that such a prohibition ran afoul of the NLRA.

The Banner Health System decision, however, greatly expands that principle. Employers now must be careful whenever directing employees not to communicate among themselves about, or to maintain as “confidential” all matters related to, an internal investigation. Protection of the integrity of the investigation is not going to be a sufficiently substantial reason for imposing such a prohibition, and the burden will be on the employer to establish that it had a “substantial business justification” for the prohibition that outweighed its employees’ rights under Section 7 of the NLRA.

In the event you believe it necessary to maintain the confidentiality of an internal investigation, we suggest that you take several steps:

  • First, make sure you are able to articulate a significant concern particular to the investigation that a failure by any witness to maintain confidentiality will result in serious, negative consequences. For instance, where employer, employee or third-party safety might be jeopardized, where a target of or participant in the investigation might become violent, where the target of or participant in the investigation might threaten or manipulate other witnesses, or where evidence might be destroyed or lost.
  • Second, be clear to limit your request for confidentiality. Limit it explicitly to confidentiality of the interview conducted, the facts known to the individual, his or her impressions and opinions, the existence of the investigation, and other of its elements. Make clear that the confidentiality is to be maintained only during the pendency of the investigation, but not afterwards. And, if possible, articulate that the confidentiality is to be maintained not just among employees but also among friends and family members.
  • Finally, do not threaten to discipline employees for breaches of confidentiality regarding the investigation at the time you communicate your confidentiality request, unless the investigation is one that clearly and “substantially” justifies such a threat.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

NLRB Political “Tit for Tat” Continues

The National Law Review recently published an article, NLRB Political “Tit for Tat” Continues, by Keith J. Brodie of Barnes & Thornburg LLP:

 

 

Another Obama recess appointment to the NLRB is drawing Congressional scrutiny in recent days, in a continuation of the behind-the-scenes politicking between the Administration and certain Congressional members.  As we have reported previously, Republican Board Member Terrance Flynn resigned in May in the wake of allegations of inappropriate communications during his time as Chief Counsel for Board Member Brian Hayes.   Now Senator Orin Hatch, a prominent Utah Republican, has set his sights on Democratic Board Member Richard Griffin.  Prior to being appointed to the Board by President Obama in January, Mr. Griffin was General Counsel of the International Union of Operating Engineers.

In a letter sent to Mr. Griffin on July 18, Senator Hatch raises questions about Mr. Griffin’s actions during his time as General Counsel for the union, specifically requesting information about his role in defending IUOE union officials accused of fraud and extortion, an area that he claims would have been investigated in detail at Mr. Griffin’s confirmation hearing in front of the Senate, if not for President Obama’s actions in appointing Mr. Griffin as a recess appointment.  It remains to be seen whether Member Griffin will actually respond to Senator Hatch’s questions.  But Senator Hatch’s letter illustrates that the Board is likely to continue to be closely scrutinized by Congress, especially as the election season progresses, and that the political “tit for tat” is likely to continue.

Senator Hatch’s letter to Mr. Griffin is available here (PDF).

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

NLRB’s Acting General Counsel Releases Another Report on Social Media Policies

An article by Steve L. Hernández of Barnes & Thornburg LLP recently had an article regarding NLRB’s Social Media Policies in The National Law Review:

On May 30, 2012. Lafe Solomon, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel (the “AGC”), released a third report on social media cases brought before the Board. This report deals with seven different cases involving social media policies, covering topics such as the use of social media and electronic technologies, confidentiality, privacy, protection of employer information, intellectual property, and contact with the media and government agencies. In the first six policies reviewed, the AGC concluded that at least some of the provisions in the employers’ policies and rules were overbroad and, accordingly, unlawful, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Importantly, the Board found that the savings clauses in these otherwise unlawful policies did not save the policies. Only the final social media policy reviewed by the AGC was found to be entirely lawful. In finding the final reviewed policy lawful, the AGC pointed to the policies substantial use of examples of allowed and proscribed behavior. Specifically, the AGC stated that “rules that clarify and restrict their scope by including examples of clearly illegal or unprotected conduct, such that they could not reasonably be construed to cover protected activity, are not unlawful.”

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

NLRB Member Flynn Resigns From Board

The National Law Review recently published an article by Scott J. Witlin of Barnes & Thornburg LLP regarding the National Labor Relations Board:

Terence Flynn, one of two Republican members on the five member NLRB, resigned from the Board Sunday, May 27, effective July 24. Flynn has been under investigation over alleged inappropriate communications regarding the Board’s internal deliberations. Flynn’s resignation will permit President Obama to appoint another remember.

By tradition, that member should be a Republican. President Obama himself was the subject of controversy earlier this year by using his recess appointment powers to fill three vacancies on the Board. Member Flynn was one of those recess appointments. More information about the resignation is available here.

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Court Invalidates Ambush Election Regulation

Mark A. Carter of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP recently had an article, Court Invalidates Ambush Election Regulation, published in The National Law Review:

On May 14, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated the controversial regulation of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that would have dramatically reduced the time frame of union organizing campaigns from the filing of a representation petition to the representational election. Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. NLRB. The “ambush election” regulation, which was implemented on April 30, 2012, was roundly criticized because it limited the ability of employers to exercise their right under §8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act to communicate with employees regarding the impact of selecting a collective bargaining representative.

In an 18 page opinion, Judge James E. Boasberg granted summary judgment to the United States Chamber of Commerce (US Chamber) and the Coalition for a Democratic Workforce (CDW), agreeing that the NLRB did not have statutory authority to implement the regulation because the NLRB was not possessed of a quorum when the regulation was voted on. On December 16, 2011 the vote on the regulation was conducted by e-mail. While Chairman Mark Pearce and former Member Craig Becker both voted to implement the regulation, Member Brian Hayes did not vote. The US Chamber and the CDW argued that as Member Hayes did not “participate” in the vote, there was not a quorum of three NLRB members on the vote, and as such, the implementation was invalid. The NLRB argued that as Hayes had an “opportunity” to vote, the NLRB did have a quorum and, therefore, the regulation was validly implemented as a quorum existed.

The Court disagreed, citing a Woody Allen observation that “eighty percent of life is just showing up.” The Court held that the statutory mandate of a quorum for an administrative agency to implement a regulation was a foundational requirement. In the e-mail era, that mandate was not fulfilled simply because a Board Member received an opportunity to vote. Rather, active participation in the vote is required. The Court noted that while it was unnecessary to treat the issue of whether the failure to participate in the vote was “intentional,” the parties were well served to acknowledge that “such things happen all the time.” (citing a New York Times story reporting on the Wisconsin legislators who fled the state in an effort to deny Republican legislators the ability to form a quorum to vote on legislation limiting the rights of public unions in that state)

The Court concluded that the “ambush election” regulation was invalid, granting judgment against the NLRB, and directing that “representation elections will have to continue under the old procedures.” While the Court did not enter an injunction prohibiting the NLRB from enforcing the final rule, this opinion is a final adjudication on the merits of the case in the district where the NLRB is headquartered and willful disobedience of the Court’s judgment is unlikely. An appeal of the decision by the NLRB is likely.

© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

Organized Labor’s Big Day: Are You Ready?

The National Law Review recently published an article by R. Scott Summers of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding Changes that Affect Private Sector Employers:

On April 30, 2012, just a few short weeks away, two critical changes that will affect just about every private sector employer are slated to go into effect. Whether your organization has a union, or is union-free, these changes could have important implications for your workplace policies and will affect the way you handle issues during union organizing campaigns.

As of April 30, 2012, most private sector employers1 – union and non-union – will be required to post a notice entitled “Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).” The original effective date for posting this notice was January 31, 2012, but that date was pushed back until this spring. Among other things, the notice informs employees that they have the right to:

  • organize a union
  • discuss wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment with co-workers
  • strike and picket
  • choose not to participate in such activities.

The notice also lists examples of unlawful employer conduct and provides information about how to file unfair labor charges against an employer.

None of the various legal challenges to this controversial National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) posting rule have yet been effective. Earlier this month a U.S. District Court Judge upheld the NLRB’s rule requiring the posting. The Judge noted among other things, that the employers had not established that they would suffer irreparable harm if the posting requirement were allowed to take effect. This was particularly the case, according to the judge, in light of her prior order invalidating the portion of the NLRB’s rule that made the mere failure to post the notice an unfair labor practice. The Judge also noted that the public interest also favored denying the employers’ requested injunction because the notice was intended to increase employees’ awareness of their rights, which the judge observed was “undoubtedly in the public interest.”There is another legal challenge to the posting rule pending in a federal District Court in South Carolina, but no decision has been issued in that case and there is no reason to expect one will be issued before April 30.

The poster is available on the NLRB’s web site at www.nlrb.gov. Also, various businesses which offer reproductions of government-required employment postings have already developed products that incorporate the new NLRB posting.

In addition to the requirement of posting a notice of employee rights under the NLRA, the NLRB has recently confirmed its plan to launch a website designed to inform nonunion employees of their rights under the NLRA. The NLRB’s focus in launching the website is to reach and educate nonunion employees about their right to engage in protected, concerted activity under the NLRA. As a supplement to the website, the NLRB plans to distribute educational brochures containing examples of issues that have arisen in past and current cases before the NLRB. The brochures, which will be offered in English and Spanish, will be distributed through advocacy groups and other federal agencies, such as the Department of Labor.

Obviously these two initiatives taken in tandem may serve to push non-union workforces to consider unionization. Additionally, the increased awareness of the right to bring a complaint against an employer regardless of one’s union membership will certainly result is an increase in the number of complaints filed with the NLRB.

The other big change, also taking effect on April 30, 2012, is a new rule that will revamp aspects of the union election process. What will this mean for your business?

  1. elections will proceed quicker than ever before
  2. you will have fewer opportunities to raise challenges throughout the election process

These rules illustrate the importance of engaging in union prevention efforts long before organizing begins.

The rule, popularly referred to as the “quickie elections” rule, will change the process for contesting union petitions and limit employers’ opportunities to challenge certain aspects of the election process before a union election. The NLRB’s goal is to speed up the election process by mandating that certain election issues be dealt with after the union election. (See our Jan. 4, 2012 insightNLRB’s New “Ambush Elections” Rule).

Eliminating pre-election appeals, limiting decisions on critical issues until after the election, and speeding up the election process, could substantially reduce the amount of time an employer has to communicate with its employees before an election. In fact, the election “campaign period” could be reduced to just a few weeks. Under the current rules, elections are usually scheduled at least a month after a union petition is filed.

A recent study conducted by the Heritage Group’s labor policy expert James Sherk estimated that the new election rules will dramatically increase the rate of unionization. Sherk cites a Bloomberg Government analysis to observe that a majority of workplace union elections are decided by five or fewer votes. What’s more, “cutting the time between a request for an election and the ballot increases the chances union supporters will prevail,” according to the study. Unions win 87 percent of elections held 11 to 15 days after a request, a rate that falls to 58 percent when the vote takes place after 36 to 40 days, according to the researchers.

The 11 to 15 day timeframe is very close to what the new NLRB rule is expected to achieve. The ambush election rule will trim the time between an election request and the election itself to 10 days or so, a significant drop from the current average of 31 days.

“If a broader set of elections were to occur more quickly,” wrote Bloomberg analysts Jason Arvelo and Ian Hathaway, “the likely outcome would be more organizing drives, a higher success rate for unions and ultimately more union membership.”

Practical Impact for Employers
In the meantime, what is the practical impact of these new rules on employers? To be sure, the new rules will result in employees being more aware of the NLRB and how to file unfair labor practice charges. They will also result in quicker elections in cases with contested unit and eligibility issues. Quicker elections certainly mean less time to communicate with employees during the election period.

Unions often plan organizing drives before they actually request a workplace election, while employers, who may not be aware of the effort, are forced to make their case only during the period between an election request and the actual election. Hence, shortening that period of time is more prohibitive to an employer’s ability to make the case against unionization than a union’s ability to lobby for it. Employees will hear the other side of the story only from management. Employers, not union organizers, will explain that unions often do not achieve their promised wage increases, but they always take up to 2 percent of workers’ wages in dues. Employers will also point out patterns of union corruption and clauses in union constitutions that levy stiff fines against workers who stray from union rules. Employers are free to tell workers what the union organizers do not.

Savvy employers should have strong employee relations policies and programs in place long before a petition. Such programs should establish open communication channels, provide for employee recognition, and implement competitive wages and benefits among other things. Implementing this type of program will not only help avoid a unionization drive in the first instance, but also will help build employee trust and establish efficient lines of communication that could be vital during a shortened pre-election period.

Employers should also consider training managers about permissible and prohibited conduct under the NLRA and conducting their own education programs, advising employees of their rights under the NLRA, and reminding employees of internal complaint procedures available to them.

Conclusion
2012 is already shaping up to be another eventful year at the NLRB. In coming insights we will further comment on the areas discussed here, as well as several other noteworthy trends. These include, among other things, the Board’s continual focus on social media cases and changes to their General Counsel’s willingness to defer to the grievance and arbitration process in some cases. Finally, Chairman Pearce’s stated desire for the Board to become known as “the resource for people with workplace concerns that may have nothing to do with union activities” promises a continuation of the Board’s focus on protected concerted activity cases in the non-union context. As always, we will continue to monitor and analyze these changes and their implications for employers.
_______________

(1) Excluded from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act are public-sector employees, agricultural and domestic workers, independent contractors, workers employed by a parent or spouse, employees of air and rail carriers covered by the Railway Labor Act, and supervisors.

© 2012 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.

New NLRB Rule Speeds Union Elections

An article published recently in the National Law Review by John A. Ferguson Jr., Robert S. Nichols, Nancy M. O’Connor, and Lon R. Williams Jr. of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP covered the New Union Election Rules by the NLRB:

Time and Procedures for Employers to Respond to Union Election Petitions Are Eliminated or Reduced

Today the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published in the Federal Register its new Rule that will change procedures for private sector union representation elections. The Rule becomes effective April 30, 2012. The Rule dramatically shortens the period between the filing of an election petition and the election unless the parties stipulate to the election date. The Rule also effectively eliminates pre-election challenges to NLRB rulings on such critical issues as the appropriate bargaining unit and eligible voters.

While the NLRB defends these changes predicting they “will reduce unnecessary litigation in representation cases and thereby enable the Board to better fulfill its duty to expeditiously resolve questions concerning representation,” the sure effect of these changes will be to reduce the time period—and thus the opportunity—for employers to communicate their views on unions with their employees and to respond meaningfully to union campaign efforts before an election is held.

Which Election Procedures Will Be Changed?

The specific amendments to the NLRB’s current rules of procedure include:

  • Authorizing NLRB hearing officers in pre-election hearings to limit evidence on any individual eligibility issue.
  • Expanding these hearing officers’ discretion over post-hearing briefs, including limiting the subjects that can be addressed, the amount of time for filing, and also determining whether a brief can be filed at all.
  • Eliminating the right to request pre-election review of a Regional Director’s rulings, requiring the request for review to be consolidated with any post-election requests for review of the Regional Director’s rulings on challenges and objections.
  • Eliminating the current 25-day waiting period between the Regional Director’s post-hearing Decision and Direction of Election and the election.
  • Limiting special appeals from rulings of the NLRB hearing officer or Regional Director to “extraordinary circumstances where it appears that the issue will otherwise evade review.”
  • Subjecting the current right to appeal a Regional Director’s post-election rulings on potentially outcome-determinative challenges and objections to the NLRB’s discretion.

What Changes That the NLRB Had Initially Proposed Are Not Included in Its New Rule?

The NLRB’s Final Rule implements only some of the more dramatic procedural changes that the NLRB had originally proposed in June 2011. Some of those proposed changes which are not included in the current Rule would have:

  • Required employers to directly provide the union—within two days of the Regional Director’s decision—each eligible employee’s name, telephone number, e-mail address, work location, shift and classification. Currently, only the employee’s name and home address are required to be provided by the employer to the Regional Director within seven days of the decision. The Regional Director then makes that information available to the union.
  • Set the pre-election hearing within seven days of the filing of the election petition and required that the non-petitioning party, such as an employer, submit a written statement of position with all substantive arguments before that hearing or risk waiving those arguments on appeal.

Has the NLRB’s Final Rule Been Challenged?

Yes.

  • On December 1, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives passed theWorkforce Democracy and Fairness Act, which would allow a union representation election only after 35 days from the filing of the petition and would also require a two-week waiting period before the first hearing could be held on that petition.
  • On December 20, 2011, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the Rule, claiming that employers will be denied a fair opportunity to explain to employees the consequences of unionizing.

© 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP