Advertisement

May 20, 2013

D.C. District Court Throws Out Ambush Election Rules, Finds Board Lacked Quorum

District Court Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion this afternoon finding the NLRB's “ambush” election rules invalid because the Board did not have three members who cast a vote on whether to implement the rules when they were adopted in December.  Although the Board had three members at the time, Judge Boasberg found that Member Brian Hayes objected to the rules and did not cast a vote when the final rule was adopted.  Because Member Hayes effectively did not participate in adoption of the final rule, Judge Boasberg found that the Board lacked a quorum and that the adoption of the final rules was invalid under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in New Process Steel. Judge Boasberg's entire opinion is available here.

Judge Boasberg's opinion did not reach the question of whether the final rule was otherwise lawful, had it been adopted when the Board had a quorum.  Instead, Judge Boasberg concluded that “representation elections will have to continue under the old procedures” unless a properly constituted quorum of the Board votes to adopt the rule. There is no word yet from the Board responding to today's opinion and it remains to be seen whether the Board will hold another vote to adopt the rules. Stay tuned.

See our prior coverage of the Board's “ambush” election rules here.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Associate

Christine Holst is an associate in the Grand Rapids office of Barnes & Thornburg and is a member of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Department. She focuses her practice on general labor and employment matters and defense of Title VII, ADEA, and other employment discrimination cases.

616-742-3927

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.