NLRB re-proposes full version of so-called ‘ambush election’ rules
On 5 February 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) voted 3–2 to reissue a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its representation election procedures. This proposal, identical to the proposal made by the board in June 2011, would speed up the union election process, while limiting employers’ ability to participate in the process. If the rules are finally approved and promulgated, they may take effect as soon as this year. Therefore, employers must prepare now for faster elections with fewer procedural protections. Indeed, it is predicted that this proposal could shorten the time between the filing of a petition with the NLRB and an election from the 2013 median of 38 days to a mere 25 days.
A representation election conducted by the NLRB is the usual method by which a union can become the certified bargaining representative of a group of employees at a workplace. The process traditionally begins with a union filing an election petition with an NLRB regional director and concludes with a secret ballot election. In June 2011, the board proposed broad changes to its representation election procedures. Due to the controversy surrounding this proposed rule, and the fact that more than 65,000 comments were filed in response to it, NLRB chairman Mark G Pearce proposed a less ambitious version of the rule in November 2011. The modified version of the rule was purportedly approved in December 2011; however, following a legal challenge brought by the US Chamber of Commerce, in May 2012, the DC District Court struck down that rule without reaching the merits. In Chamber of Commerce of the US v NLRB, 879 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2012), the court reasoned that the rule was invalid because it was approved without a quorum, as only two of the three then-current members of the board had cast a vote using the board’s electronic voting procedures. The board appealed the court’s ruling to the DC Circuit, but it withdrew its appeal in December 2013, likely so that it could attempt to quickly push through the broader version of the rules now that it has a full complement of members and a Democratic, pro-union majority…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Hogan Lovells
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Hogan Lovells
The decision of the US Court of Appeals has raised questions about how issuers should present their disclosures on conflict minerals under Exchange Act Rule 13p-1 and Form SD.
An interesting judgment was delivered by the Honourable J Majiki on 19 November 2013 in the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth.
Analysis from The Lawyer
As international firms question their future in these small, closely linked markets, local lawyers too are eyeing the business environment with caution
Beyond the headline infrastructure projects, UK construction work is still recovering from the clobbering it took during the slump