Advertisement

June 19, 2013

NLRB Union Election Rule Found Invalid

On May 14, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia  struck down the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) new rules governing union elections by finding that the NLRB did not have the three member quorum necessary when it considered and voted on the new rules in December 2011.

As a result, the NLRB has temporarily suspended the implementation of changes to its representation case process and has advised regional directors to revert to their previous practices for election petitions starting today.

The NLRB could appeal this ruling, or could remedy the situation by re-enacting the rule with a three member quorum.  It is unlikely that this snap election issue is dead.

Having gone into effect on April 30, 2012, the rule's primary objective was to substantially reduce the period of time between the filing of a union representation petition and an election. Under the rule, employers would no longer be entitled to a hearing before the election on most issues, and even in cases where a hearing took place, the election would take place more quickly after the hearing than under the prior system. Approximately 150 election petitions were filed during the small window in which the new rule was in effect.

© 2013 Varnum LLP

About the Author

Associate

Luis focuses his practice on immigration and refugee law, international law, civil liberties, and international trade and finance. He has first chair trial experience in a wide variety of employment and immigration-based cases, as well as I-9 audits, visas, waivers, adjustments of status and naturalization matters. He is fluent in Spanish and English.

Luis’ experience spans the United States, Mexico and Europe. With a background in international business law and finance, Luis worked for a large international corporate law firm in Mexico City where he worked on foreign direct...

616-336-6742

About the Author

Partner

Dave’s “client-centered” practice involves a variety of labor and employment issues. He provides practical and confidential ongoing advice and consulting on a number of sensitive and complex labor and employment matters, from problem employee situations to multi-facility collective bargaining negotiations. His representative clients include diverse industries (such as automotive, printing,...

616-336-6608

Contributors

Partner

Dick Hooker has had significant experience in traditional labor relations, state/federal agency work, employment litigation, union election campaigns, unemployment insurance taxation matters, and arbitration of employment disputes. He is a facilitative mediator for the U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan and the Michigan Courts, and he is listed as an...

248-567-7429

About the Author

Partner

Pat White's practice concentrates on the full spectrum of civil rights issues, race and gender disability matters, free speech and electronic privacy issues in the workplace. In addition to litigation, he also does traditional labor work, including negotiation and arbitration, both for public and private sector clients. He also maintains expertise in education law, representing school districts, community colleges and colleges and universities, both with respect to employment issues as well...

616/336-6615

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.