Skip to main content

January 31, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 31

National Law Review
  • Login
  • Mdn
  • FB
  • twt
  • link
  • home
  • rss
  • logo
  • Publish / Advertise with Us
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Join Our Team
    • Search
  • Trending Legal News
    • Most Recent
    • Legal News Podcast
    • What's Trending
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • NLR Blog
    • Search
  • About Us
    • About the NLR
    • NLR Team
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • NLR Thought Leadership Awards
      • 2018
      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Search
  • Contact Us
    • Contact Us
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Search
  • Quick Links
    • Legal News Podcast
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Search
  • ENEWSBULLETINS

45

New Articles
Bottom Row Image
Advertisement

January 31, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Weekly IRS Roundup January 23 – January 27, 2023 by: Sarah M. Raben
  • Telecom Alert:$100L NAL Over USF Filings; E-Rate Tribal Participation... by: Jaimy "Sindy" Alarcon and Jim Baller

January 30, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • News For Veteran-Owned Small Businesses – SDVOSB and VOSB... by: Emily S. Theriault and David S. Gallacher
  • Telephone and Texting Compliance News: Regulatory Update — Commission... by: Russell H. Fox and Jonathan P. Garvin
  • District of Columbia’s New Human Rights Enhancement Amendment Act... by: D’Ontae D. Sylvertooth and Owen J. Peters
  • Singapore: A Rising Tiger Economy for Startups and Venture Capital in... by: Louis Lehot and Eric Chow
  • Court Granted Mandamus Relief To Order District Court To Abate Trust... by: David Fowler Johnson
  • LET’S TALK TEXTS/SMS: Real Quick Synopsis on the Current TCPA Rules... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • US Executive Branch Update – January 30, 2023 by: Stacy A. Swanson
  • California AG Announces CCPA Enforcement Sweep Aimed at Mobile Apps... by: Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • DOJ Expands Availability of Declinations with Disgorgement for... by: Erin K. Sullivan and Lane M. Webster
  • SCOTUS Cert Recap: SCOTUS Adds Eight Issues To Its Docket, Including... by: Kian Hudson and Lara Langeneckert
  • The New Hart-Scott-Rodino Filing Thresholds: The FTC and Congress... by: Jennifer M. Driscoll
  • Healthcare Industry May be Impacted by FTC Proposed Rule Prohibiting... by: Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
  • FTC Announces 2023 Thresholds Under HSR Act and Clayton Act New... by: John R Ingrassia and Timothy E. Burroughs
  • Illinois Enacts New Law to Standardize Local Permitting for Renewable... by: Ryan C. Granholm and Amy Antoniolli
  • Louisiana Appellate Court Finds Nondiscretionary Production Bonus... by: Andrew P. Burnside and Ellen C. Rains
  • Inflation Reduction Act: EPA Invites Stakeholder Input on Grant/... by: Steven G. Barringer and Robert Mangas
  • Annual Reports Coming to Pennsylvania and Other Updates to the... by: W. H. Snyder and David M. Aceto
  • SECURE 2.0: Retirement Plan Rules Get a Makeover! by: Labor and Employment Polsinelli
  • New Year, New Protections for Pregnant and Nursing Employees by: Jacqueline A. Hayduk
  • Movement on CPRA Regulations Expected by: Julia K. Kadish
  • USCIS Announces H-1B Cap Registration Period for March 2023 by: John F. Quill
  • Despite Legal and Other Challenges, Amendments to Delaware’s... by: Lisa R. Stark and Sean M. Jones
  • USCIS Announces Registration Period for the FY 2024 H-1B Cap by: Meagan E. Dziura
  • Amazon’s Most Favored Nations Policies Scrutinized Under Sherman Act by: Christopher E Ondeck and John R Ingrassia
  • Coming to Illinois in 2024 – Paid Leave for Any Reason by: Amanda C. Hibbler
  • Rules Enabling Act Key to New Ninth Circuit Decision on Class... by: Wystan M. Ackerman
  • 2022 Privacy World Year in Review: CCPA by: Kristin L. Bryan and Marisol C. Mork
  • Accountable AI Systems through Risk Management: NIST Creates... by: Amy S. Leopard and Elizabeth M. Boone
  • Are Lawyers Who Author Or Vote For Unconstitutional Laws Subject To... by: Keith Paul Bishop
  • PEOS–The European Perspective by: Paul Callegari and Roberto Podda
  • Did You Hear? The EEOC Issues New Guidance on Auditory Disabilities... by: Joe D'Andrea
  • Congress Codifies Longstanding M&A Broker Exemption from SEC... by: Robert Long and William B. Mack
  • Court Affirms Judgment In Divorce Proceeding That Property Was... by: David Fowler Johnson
  • FDA Announces Important Shift in CBD Products Regulation by: Whitt Steineker and Savannah Kolodziej
  • Update: Reclassification of Northern Long-eared Bat as Endangered... by: Matthew D. Manahan and Lisa A. Gilbreath
  • Anti-Abortion Advocacy Groups’ Challenge to FDA-Approved Abortion... by: Amy K. Dow and Olivia K. Plinio
  • FCC Provides Some Clarity On Healthcare Messages, Indirectly Confirms... by: Douglas A. Grimm and Adam D. Bowser
  • SECURE 2.0 Brings Significant Changes for 403(b) Plans by: Katrina E. McCann and Jay E. Jensen
  • Digital Decision Making: Community Association Board of Directors Can... by: Madeline C. Lipe
  • California AG Announces Investigation of Mobile Apps’ CCPA Compliance by: Gretchen A. Ramos
  • SECURE 2.0 Act Brings Slate of Changes to Employer-Sponsored... by: John D. Arendshorst and Andrea M. Gumushian
  • FDA Finalizes Guidance to Prevent Unsafe Contamination of Animal Feed... by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
  • Outside Tips: SEC Sues Trio for Trading on Equifax Breach by: Peter D. Hutcheon and Jerome F. Gallagher, Jr.
  • Congress Continues to Expand Bank Secrecy Act Whistleblower Program by: Kevin McCart and Rebecca A. Worthington
  • SECURE 2.0 Series Part 7: Matching Contributions Based on Student... by: Joy Napier-Joyce

January 29, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Feds "Hack the Hackers" and Take Down Prolific (and... by: Cynthia J. Larose
  • New York Woman Sentenced for $9.2 Million COVID-19 Relief Fraud by: United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
  • Registration for H-1B Cap-Subject Petitions Opens in March (H-1B... by: Kimberly A. Clarke and Nina Thekdi
  • Beltway Buzz, January 27, 2023 by: James J. Plunkett
  • 2022 Delaware Corporate Law Year in Review by: Nathan P. Emeritz and Diane N. Ibrahim

January 28, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Five Quick Tips for Drafting and Negotiating ESI Protocols by: Electronic Discovery at KL Gates
  • California Civil Rights Division Releases Updated Guidance for 2022... by: Christopher W. Olmsted and James A. Patton

Article By

Keahn N. Morris
Mark S. Ross
John S. Bolesta

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Labor & Employment Law Blog
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP full service Global 100 law firm handling corporate law

Related Practices & Jurisdictions


  • Labor & Employment
  • Litigation / Trial Practice
  • Election Law / Legislative News
  • All Federal
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Tweet
Advertisement

Christmas Comes Early for Employers at the NLRB — New Election Procedures That Give Employers a Greater Opportunity to Mount Legal Challenges to Election Petitions and to Effectively Campaign Against Unionization

Friday, December 13, 2019

On the eve of the holidays, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) delivered an early Christmas present to employers with its issuance of new regulations governing the NLRB election process.  While not scraping the Obama Board’s controversial 2014 election regulations wholesale, the current Board’s new rules moderate the election processing time frames considerably, allow employers to raise issues of supervisory status before an election is held and give employers a greater opportunity to campaign amongst employee voters in an effort to maintain their union free status.  These procedural changes which will become effective in early April 2020 are welcome news for they go a long way towards re-leveling the playing field for employers when they litigate election issues and conduct election campaigns.

Here is a brief description of some of the more important rule changes and an explanation of why they should matter to employers.

  1. The new rules eliminate the requirement that a pre-election hearing be held within 8 calendar days of a petition’s filing and extend that hearing date to a more manageable time frame of 14 business

Why This Matters:  One of the vices of the Obama Board’s 2014 rules was that it so shortened election process timelines as to deprive employers of reasonable opportunity to properly investigate election issues and to prepare for a possible pre-election hearing (R case hearing).  The imminency of the pre-election hearing also gave unions added leverage in negotiation election agreements that obviated the need for a hearing.  The new regulations eliminate those problems by more than doubling the time between the filing of a petition and the holding of an R case hearing.

  1. The new rules extend the time for the filing of statements of positions by non-petitioning parties, typically employers, from the 7thcalendar day following the filing of a petition to 8 business

Why This Matters:  The Obama Board’s 2014 rules instituted a new requirement that a non-petitioning party file a statement of position (SOP) setting forth the issues it intended to raise at the hearing by noon, the day before the hearing.  SOPs played a central role in the processing of an election petition since it determined what issues could be raised at the R case hearing and affected the timing of the election.  Indeed, a failure to file a SOP could operate as the employer’s waiver of a right to a hearing.  Likewise, issues not raised in the SOP could be deemed waived.  Finally, if the issues raised by an SOP were deemed insufficient to warrant a hearing, a hearing was cancelled or a “no issue” hearing could be conducted, resulting in the accelerated issuance of a direction of election.  By giving an employer 8 full business days following the filing of a petition (instead of 6 ½ calendar days) to respond to a petition with a SOP, the Board gives employers a more reasonable opportunity to identify and effectively stake legal claims to be raised at the R case hearing.

  1. The new rules create a new requirement that petitioners file responsive SOPs and that said responsive SOP be filed at least 3 business days before a scheduled pre-election hearing.

Why This Matters:  While requiring non-petitioning parties (typically employers) to file SOPs, the Obama Board rules contained no such requirement for the petitioner (typically unions).  Accordingly, unlike an employer who had to lay out its election issues as a condition of even getting an issue, unions were under no similar obligation and could litigate election issues by ambush.  The new rules eliminate this imbalance by requiring both petitioners and non-petitioners to file SOPs before proceeding to hearing.  That way both sides can be prepared to present their respective cases as well as to respond to the other side’s assertions.

  1. The new rules re-allow disputes concerning unit scope and voter eligibility, i.e. supervisory status, to be litigated at the pre-election hearing.

Why This Matters:  The 2014 Obama Board rules confined pre-election hearings to issues relating to whether a valid question concerning representation existed.  Such issues included the petitioner’s status as a labor organization and whether the petitioned for voting/bargaining unit was appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.  However, issues as to unit inclusion, i.e. whether a particular person or class of persons was a supervisory, managerial employee or confidential employee, were not subjects that could be raised prior to an election.  Instead, if one of the parties believed a person or a class of persons to be ineligible, their only option was to challenge the person’s vote for possible post-election resolution should their votes be sufficient in number to affect the election’s ultimate outcome.  This limitation on the pre-election litigation of supervisory issues posed serious problems for employers on several counts because it deprived employers of the certainty of knowing who was and wasn’t in the voting unit and who employers could lawfully tell not to engage in union activity or called upon to campaign on behalf of the employer.  Further, this supervisory uncertainty tended to breed unfair labor practices since, as the agents of an employer, a supervisor was capable of inadvertently saying and doing things that might violate the NLRA while, if a person was an employee, that same conduct would not violate the law.  Employers often manage this risk by giving NLRA compliance training to its managers and supervisors and instructing them not to engage in certain unlawful conduct.  But giving such training to persons whose supervisory status was uncertain presented serious problems since if the person taking the training proved to be an employee, then the training itself could be deemed an unfair labor practice.  The new rules will address this issue by allowing supervisory status to be an issue in pre-election R case hearings.

  1. The new rules reestablish the right to file post hearing briefs in both pre- and post-election hearings.

Why This Matters:  Under the Obama election rules, the time honored right to file post-hearing briefs was eliminated.  Thus, if an employer wanted to present formal legal arguments in written form to support its position and even though no record evidence remained yet to be taken, its brief had to be filed at the R case hearing.  Because of this and because of the Board’s then unreasonably short election processing timeframes, many employers dispensed with the filing of briefs, relying solely upon hastily compiled and presented evidence, thus causing the quality of regional decisions to suffer.  The new rules address this problem by not only lengthening the time to a hearing but by re-mandating that employers be given the right to file post-hearing briefs within 5 business days of the close of the hearing.

  1. The new rules provide that an election will not be scheduled to take place before the 20th business day after the issuance of a direction of election.

Why This Matters:  The Obama Board’s 2014 election rules so streamlined and accelerated the time to election as to deprive employer’s opportunity to mount a political response to a petition through an effective and lawful election campaign and to inform its workforce of the pros and cons of unionization.  Moreover, the shortness of the Board’s election timeframes in the 2014 rules made it difficult for employers to negotiate fair election agreements that gave them a reasonable shot of prevailing at the ballot box.  The new rules answer these problems by affording employers a more reasonable amount of time within which to conduct a campaign by mandating that no election be held in less than 20 business days following a regional director’s direction of election.

  1. The new rules authorize the permissive filing of a request for review by the Board of a Regional Director’s adverse direction of election to be filed within 10 business days of the election direction’s issuance and provides that, if the request is not ruled on by the end of an election, for the impoundment of disputed ballots.

Why This Matters:  Employers wishing to take issue with an adverse regional election determination do so by filing a Request for Review (RFR) of the region’s decision with the Board.  Departing from time honored Board procedure, the Obama Board’s election rules eliminated pre-election RFRs and allowed employers to challenge such adverse pre-election ruling only after the holding of an election.  This new procedure raised questions about due process and rendered many challenges to incorrect adverse regional determinations moot since there was no way to raise them and to have them decided before the election was conducted and election results were known.  The new rules address this problem by reinstating but not requiring a pre-election RFR to be filed within 10 business days of an adverse regional determination and by directing that regions impound disputed ballots until after a pre-election RFR is ruled on.  That way, the correctness or incorrectness of the region’s actions can be made known and factored into a case before ballots are counted.

  1. The new rules prohibit regional directors from certifying the results of an election while a request for review is pending or before the time that a post-election request for review can be filed.

Why This Matters:  Under the 2014 Obama Board rules, once an election was held, regions were required to certify election results despite the pendency or possibility of a RFR.  As a result, unions would often demand to bargain with an employer and file unfair labor practice charges against an employer even as the Board considered the employer’s RFR and even though, if granted, the RFR could render the certification a nullity.  The new rule eliminates the issuance of certification until after RFRs are ruled on, promoting the more orderly litigation of both election and unfair labor practice cases.

Copyright © 2023, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 347
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Advertisement

Latest Legal News & Analysis

Weekly IRS Roundup January 23 – January 27, 2023
McDermott Will & Emery
Telecom Alert:$100L NAL Over USF Filings; E-Rate Tribal Participation NPRM; 988...
Keller and Heckman LLP
News For Veteran-Owned Small Businesses – SDVOSB and VOSB Certification Moves to...
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Telephone and Texting Compliance News: Regulatory Update — Commission Submits...
Mintz
District of Columbia’s New Human Rights Enhancement Amendment Act Changes...
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

The New Hart-Scott-Rodino Filing Thresholds: The FTC and Congress Join Forces to...
By
Robinson & Cole LLP
Healthcare Industry May be Impacted by FTC Proposed Rule Prohibiting the...
By
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
FTC Announces 2023 Thresholds Under HSR Act and Clayton Act New Filing Fee Schedule...
By
Proskauer Rose LLP
Illinois Enacts New Law to Standardize Local Permitting for Renewable Energy...
By
ArentFox Schiff LLP
Louisiana Appellate Court Finds Nondiscretionary Production Bonus Based on Employee...
By
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Inflation Reduction Act: EPA Invites Stakeholder Input on Grant/Technical...
By
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Advertisement

Upcoming Legal Education Events

What to Expect in Chemicals Policy and Regulation and on Capitol Hill in 2023
Tuesday, January 31, 2023
Fashion Law 2022 Year in Review
Tuesday, January 31, 2023
Prepare for 2023: What to Expect in Labor & Employment this Year
Wednesday, February 1, 2023
PCI DSS 4.0: Timelines and Initial Preparation Steps Required for Your Business
Wednesday, February 1, 2023

About this Author

Keahn Morris, Sheppard Mullin Law Firm, San Francisco, Labor and Employment Law Attorney
Keahn N. Morris
Associate

Keahn N. Morris is an associate in the Labor and Employment Practice Group in the San Francisco office.Keahn’s practice focuses on all areas of labor and employment law, with an emphasis on traditional labor law, high-stakes employment-related litigation, and proactive counseling of management-side clients. Recognized by Super Lawyers as a "Rising Star", Keahn was identified as a top rated labor and employment attorney in San Francisco in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. He has significant experience in all aspects of labor-management relations law, including union corporate...

[email protected]
415-774-2934
www.sheppardmullin.com
Mark S. Ross
Mark Ross, Sheppard Mullin Law Firm, Labor and Employment Attorney
Special Counsel

Mark S. Ross is a Special Counsel in the Labor and Employment Practice Group in the firm's San Francisco Office.

[email protected]
415-774-2930
www.sheppardmullin.com
John S. Bolesta
John Bolesta, Lawyer, Employment, Sheppard Mullin Law Firm
Special Counsel

John S. Bolesta is a Special Counsel in the Labor and Employment Practice Group in the firm's Washington, D.C. office

Areas of Practice

Mr. Bolesta represents management in a wide variety of labor and employment litigation matters. He represents clients in a broad range of industries during union organizing attempts and litigation before the National Labor Relations Board, contract negotiation and labor arbitrations. Additionally, he advises clients on best practices in employee relations and the development of comprehensive labor strategies to preserve the...

[email protected]
202 747 3375
www.sheppardmullin.com
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
National Law Review
  • Antitrust Law
  • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
  • Biotech, Food, & Drug
  • Business of Law
  • Election & Legislative
  • Construction & Real Estate
  • Environmental & Energy
  • Family, Estates & Trusts
  • Financial, Securities & Banking
  • Global
  • Health Care Law
  • Immigration
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Insurance
  • Labor & Employment
  • Litigation
  • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
  • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
  • Tax
  • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
  • Coronavirus News
  • Law Student Writing Competition
  • Sign Up For NLR Bulletins
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs

 

As a woman owned company, The National Law Review is a certified member of the Women's Business Enterprise National Council

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. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  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.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317.  If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.

Copyright ©2023 National Law Forum, LLC