Dive Brief:
- A federal judge recently handed a victory to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a highly-publicized case challenging the unprecedented representation case procedures adopted by a split NLRB in 2014, reports Peter R. Spanos, a partner in the Atlanta and Washington, D.C., offices of Barnes & Thornburg.
- Commonly known as the “Ambush Election Rules,” the NLRB made “sweeping changes” to the union representation election process that many employers regard as “sharply curtailing” their ability to contest a union election drive while shifting the odds in favor of a union, Spanos writes.
- In her opinion, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia considers and rejects the contentions that a number of features of the “Ambush Election Rules” violate precedent or legislative history under the National Labor Relations Act, violate the Constitution, or are the result of “arbitrary and capricious rulemaking."
Dive Insight:
Spanos points out that the decision specifically upholds the NLRB rules across the board, including the posting of a notice of election only two days after service of a notice of hearing, and the setting of the election date at the “earliest date practicable," among other features of the NLRB rule.
Considering this is the second failed attempt to set aside the current NLRB election rules (a similar challenge brought by a Texas construction association was rejected by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas), employers who are in a potential union organizing scenario should pay close attention to these NLRB rules.
