Advertisement

May 20, 2013

Federal court strikes down NLRB’s new election rules

In a decision issued a few minutes ago, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia struck down the NLRB’s new election rules because the Board lacked a quorum when it attempted to adopt the final rule. On December 16, 2011, Chairman Pearce and then-Member Becker voted to approve the final version of the rule. However, Member Hayes did not vote, nor was he asked to record a vote. The Board majority took the position that, because Member Hayes had previously voted against initiating the rulemaking at issue, he had “effectively indicated his opposition.”

Applying the Supreme Court’s holding in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, the court held that the failure to include Hayes in the adoption of the final rule ran afoul of the Board’s quorum requirement. Because the Board lacked a quorum when it attempted to adopt the final rule, the final rule is not effective and representation cases will “continue under the old procedures.”

We will continue to follow this important development as it unfolds.

©2013 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Associate

Justin F. Keith is an associate in the Boston office of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. He 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. He frequently represents employers in wage & hour class and collective actions in state and federal court.  

617-310-6230

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.