Overturning five decades of precedent, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific (372 NLRB No. 130) adopted a new election standard on two key fronts: (1) how may an employer respond to a union’s claim of majority support; and (2) when are employers subject to a bargaining order if an unfair labor practice occurs after a petition is filed but before an election?

Continue reading the full GT Alert.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Ellen Bronchetti Ellen Bronchetti

Ellen Bronchetti represents a range of employers in both employment matters and traditional labor disputes. She litigates on behalf of employers in wage and hour matters, trade secret misappropriation cases, and matters involving whistleblowers, statutory leave, breach of contract claims, and accusations of…

Ellen Bronchetti represents a range of employers in both employment matters and traditional labor disputes. She litigates on behalf of employers in wage and hour matters, trade secret misappropriation cases, and matters involving whistleblowers, statutory leave, breach of contract claims, and accusations of wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Ellen’s litigation practice spans both state and federal courts, including complex class actions and representative action litigation across the United States.

Ellen’s traditional labor practice includes representing employers before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in unfair labor practice proceedings and matters related to collective bargaining. She also advises Fortune 500 companies on union-management relations, corporate campaigns, and other labor strategy.

Ellen counsels clients across industries, ranging from health care, hospitality, and transportation to waste disposal and collection, entertainment, and the on-demand economy.

Photo of Ronald J. Holland Ronald J. Holland

Ron Holland litigates on behalf of employers in state and federal courts, focusing on wage and hour class actions, whistleblower suits, breach of contract, accusations of wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, and other complex labor and employment matters. He defends employers nationwide in proceedings…

Ron Holland litigates on behalf of employers in state and federal courts, focusing on wage and hour class actions, whistleblower suits, breach of contract, accusations of wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, and other complex labor and employment matters. He defends employers nationwide in proceedings before state and federal governmental agencies, including the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the California Labor Commissioner, and the U.S. Department of Labor.

Ron’s clients span a range of industries, including retail, entertainment, automotive, aviation, paper production, manufacturing, printing, health care, warehousing, and the gig economy.

Ron’s traditional labor practice focuses on labor arbitrations, unfair labor practice and representation hearings, collective bargaining negotiations, and federal court litigation. He serves as lead negotiator in contract negotiations and handles representation and unfair labor practice cases before the NLRB. Ron counsels Fortune 500 companies on labor strategy, union organizing, and responding to union-backed corporate campaigns. Prior to the issuance of the new election rules in 2015, Ron prepared comments to the proposed rules and also testified in Washington D.C. before the NLRB.

Photo of Justin F. Keith Justin F. Keith

Justin helps unionized businesses maintain successful labor relations and helps non-union companies maintain direct relationships with their employees through education, training, and proactive union awareness. His labor practice encompasses all aspects of labor relations, including unfair labor practices, representation proceedings before the National

Justin helps unionized businesses maintain successful labor relations and helps non-union companies maintain direct relationships with their employees through education, training, and proactive union awareness. His labor practice encompasses all aspects of labor relations, including unfair labor practices, representation proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board and Courts of Appeal, contract negotiations, strikes and lockouts, grievances, and arbitrations. Justin also represents employers in all areas of 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 awareness 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