We’ve been following the NLRB’s proposed amendments to the rules and regulations governing union election cases over the past few weeks. Today, the Board voted 2–1 to adopt the Chairman’s proposed amendments, which significantly limit employer’s rights before the Board. Before, employers had the absolute right to insist on a pre-election hearing to litigate the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit, supervisory status, and other issues. Now, hearings will be limited only to those issues—as determined  by a hearing officer of the Board (who is not a judge)—to be relevant to the question of whether an election should be conducted. The amendments also limit parties’ rights to appeal regional-level election case determinations. Click here to read a more detailed summary of the changes in our prior post.

The final rule will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow and will take effect April 30, 2012. The amendments are already being challenged in court. On December 20, 2011, the United States 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 Board’s adoption of the rule. Click here to read the Chamber’s lawsuit.

We will continue to monitor these amendments and the challenges to them in the courts. Stay tuned.

 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Justin Keith Justin Keith

Justin F. Keith represents employers in all areas of labor and employment law—including litigation of discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims, reductions in force, and numerous other personnel and workplace issues—before state and federal agencies and in courts throughout the country.

He is experienced…

Justin F. Keith represents employers in all areas of labor and employment law—including litigation of discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims, reductions in force, and numerous other personnel and workplace issues—before state and federal agencies and in courts throughout the country.

He is experienced with wage and hour class actions brought under the Massachusetts Wage Act and nationwide collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. He represents employers across a broad spectrum of industries, including retail, transportation, delivery services, and telecom services in nationwide class and collective actions brought throughout the country.

Justin regularly provides counsel to senior management and human resource personnel on employment law compliance matters, such as reductions in force, leaves of absence, exempt status classification under the FLSA and state law, employee discipline, sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation, and restrictive covenant agreements.

Justin is a contributing editor of The Developing Labor Law, the leading treatise on U.S. labor law, and a frequent speaker to legal and industry groups on labor and employment issues.

Justin’s practice encompasses all areas of traditional labor law, including union organizing campaigns, collective bargaining negotiations, unfair labor practice charges and representation case proceedings before the NLRB, union avoidance strategy and training, strike response and contingency planning, grievance arbitration proceedings, and appellate litigation before the NLRB and the Courts of Appeals. Justin was co-counsel to New Process Steel in the landmark Supreme Court case, New Process Steel v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010).