May 24, 2012

NLRB adopts controversial resolution limiting parties’ rights in union election cases

Today, the NLRB voted 2–1 to adopt a resolution put forth by Chairman Pearce that will result in significant changes to the Board’s representation case procedures—changes that most view as decidedly pro-union. Under the Board’s current rules, an employer has the unqualified right to insist on a pre-election hearing, at which it can introduce testimony and evidence, and file a post-hearing brief, addressing issues concerning the scope of the proposed bargaining unit, supervisory status, and other issues. Employers also can seek full NLRB review of any post-hearing decision by a Regional Director on these issues. Under the resolution adopted today, these rules and other election case procedures will change as follows:

  • The Hearing Officer may limit the issues that can be litigated in the case to those relevant to whether a question concerning representation exists. During the meeting, Member Becker suggested that supervisory status—often a hotly contested issue in Representation cases—may not be litigated during the hearing.
  • The Hearing Office will have discretion whether to allow parties to file post-hearing briefs.
  • Requests for Review and Post-Election Objections will be consolidated into a single appeal that may be filed after the election.
  • Elections will no longer be postponed pending resolution of a Request for Review. The practical result of the elimination of the existing 25-day period between the Regional Director’s decision and the election date is that elections may be scheduled shortly after the decision issues.
  • Review by the Board of all election issues will be discretionary.

While these changes do not go as far as those initially sought by the NLRB Chairman, they mark a significant restriction on parties’ procedural rights before the Board. Now that the resolution has been approved, barring any legal challenges, the rule will be finalized and must be approved by a majority of the Board. Click here to read the Chairman’s resolution and hereto read the NLRB’s explanation of the resolution. We will continue to monitor this issue and report on it.

©2012 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.