On April 14, 2015 the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) new union election rules (Election Rules) went into effect. As discussed in a prior GT Alert, the NLRB adopted the new rules by a 3-2 vote with the two Republican NLRB members dissenting. As outlined below, the Election Rules make significant changes to the Board’s procedures for processing election petitions, holding hearings, and conducting secret-ballot elections. Most significantly, the Election Rules pave the way for union elections to be held in as few as 14–21 days after the filing of a union petition, a dramatic decrease from the current median time of 38 days.

Among other things, under the new rules:

  • Unions can file election petitions with the NLRB Regional Offices and serve them directly on employers electronically rather than in-person, mail, or facsimile filing like under the old rules.
  • Together with a petition, the Regional Offices will serve employers with a new detailed election notice that must be posted and distributed immediately to employees by email where the employer customarily communicates with employees by email. Under the old rules, there is no such posting requirement.
  • Hearings will now be scheduled for the eighth day after service of petition in all but extraordinary circumstances.
  • Employers will be required to file and serve on the union a detailed statement of position on any issue that may possibly be heard at an evidentiary hearing on the petition by noon the day before the scheduled hearing. Failure to raise an issue in the position statement will result in a waiver from presenting evidence on the issue. This marks a significant change from the old rules which do not require pre-hearing disclosures.
  • The employer’s statement of position must also include a list of names, work locations, shifts, and job classifications of all employees in the bargaining unit sought by the union. If the employer contends that the bargaining unit sought by the union is not appropriate, it must identify the most similar unit it concedes to be appropriate. Failure to include detailed information regarding its position on the composition and scope of the bargaining unit will result in a waiver of an employer’s right to contest the appropriateness of the bargaining unit. The practical result of this change is that unions will now get access to the employer’s personnel information just a week after the petition is filed.
  • Unless issues involving the composition and scope of the bargaining unit could have a “substantial impact” on the outcome of an election, those issues will not be litigated at a pre-election hearing. Instead, the employees whose inclusion or exclusion from the bargaining unit is disputed will be required to vote subject to challenge, and their status will be determined in a post-election hearing if the challenges are sufficient to affect the results of the election. Whether an individual is an employee who is eligible to vote in an election or a statutory supervisor who is not eligible to vote is often a contested issue that must be resolved through litigation. This rule change deprives employers of the right to resolve important supervisory status issues before the campaign, and creates increased risk and legal uncertainty if individuals are treated as supervisors rather than employees during the campaign.
  • In most instances, post-hearing briefs will not be allowed. The parties will be required to present oral arguments at the end of the hearing. Under the old rules, parties in representation cases had the right to file post-hearing briefs. The elimination of the right to file post-hearing briefs will result in most elections being scheduled much more quickly than under the old rules.
  • Elections are to be held “at the earliest date practicable” after a Regional Director issues a decision and direction of election. Under the old rules, there was a 25-day minimum between the date a petition was filed and date an election could be held. As a result of the new rules, it is likely that in some cases, elections could be held as soon as 14 to 21 days from the date a petition is filed.
  • The Election Rules expand the Excelsior list requirement to include employees’ work locations, shifts, job classifications, and the employees’ home telephone numbers and personal email addresses. The list must now be filed just two days after the decision and direction of election.
  • NLRB review of the Regional Directors’ decisions and directions of election and rulings on post- election challenges and objections to pre-election conduct by the union, or conduct of the NLRB agent affecting the election, will be discretionary under the Election Rules. Under the old rules, parties had the right to a review of these matters by the NLRB. As a result, there are likely to be many Regional Directors’ decisions that the full NLRB never reviews.

Legal challenges to the Election Rules are still pending as of April 14, 2015. Consequently, the Election Rules are now in effect and will govern all union election petitions filed on or after that date, unless a court enjoins the rules at some point in the future. The Election Rules will give employers little time to engage in campaigning once a petition is filed and impose significant procedural requirements that will divert a substantial amount of time away from the already short period of time available for campaigning. An employer’s failure to meet the procedural requirements will prejudice its ability to win an election, and if it does win, could cause the election to be set aside if the union files objections. Accordingly, employers that have non-union workforces, or partially non-union workforces, should consider implementing programs to educate their employees about unionization before they become aware that they may be targets of a union organizing campaign. Employers also should be sure that they have access to experienced management labor counsel as soon as they are served with a petition for an NLRB election.

Originally published by Greenberg Traurig, LLP on gtlaw.com.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Terence McCourt Terence McCourt

Terence P. McCourt is Co-Managing Shareholder of the Boston office and Chairman of its Labor & Employment Practice. He represents a broad range of organizations in all facets of management-side labor and employment law. During more than two decades of practice, Terry has

Terence P. McCourt is Co-Managing Shareholder of the Boston office and Chairman of its Labor & Employment Practice. He represents a broad range of organizations in all facets of management-side labor and employment law. During more than two decades of practice, Terry has gained a national reputation for his practical, strategic approach to employment law issues.

With wide-ranging litigation experience, Terry handles diverse employment matters, including employment discrimination and wrongful termination cases in state and federal courts, wage and hour compliance, labor arbitration cases, non-competition cases, internal corporate investigations, and National Labor Relations Board proceedings. He also counsels employers concerning day-to-day human resources issues as well as myriad legal requirements in the workplace, particularly related to significant operational changes such as mergers, acquisitions, business relocations or reductions in force.

Terry has wide-ranging governmental experience as the former Deputy Chief Legal Counsel to the Governor of Massachusetts and General Counsel to the Massachusetts Secretary of Labor.

Photo of Howard L. Mocerf Howard L. Mocerf

Howard L. Mocerf focuses his practice on labor law and management employment matters, including collective bargaining, representation and unfair labor practice matters under The National Labor Relations Act, labor arbitration, OSHA matters, wage and hour disputes, trade secrets and non-compete agreements, and employment…

Howard L. Mocerf focuses his practice on labor law and management employment matters, including collective bargaining, representation and unfair labor practice matters under The National Labor Relations Act, labor arbitration, OSHA matters, wage and hour disputes, trade secrets and non-compete agreements, and employment discrimination matters. He is experienced in developing and writing employee handbooks, affirmative action plans and employment policies, including harassment, substance abuse, social media, e-mail and Internet use, family and medical leave, and others.

Photo of Justin Keith Justin Keith

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

Justin Co-Chairs

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

Justin Co-Chairs the firm’s Labor & Employment Practice’s Labor-Management Relations group and advises clients in 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). He is also 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 has litigated dozens of 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.