Much Ado about Monday’s NLRB Election-Rule Reversal
The fallout is still flying from Monday’s court decision striking down a recent rule by the National Labor Relations Board governing union elections.
Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated the rule — which would have made it easier and quicker for unions to hold organizing elections — on the grounds that the NLRB did not have a required quorum at the time it was made.
In this Wall Street Journal account of Boasberg’s decision (subscription required), the Obama-appointed judge is quoted as saying, “ ‘According to Woody Allen, 80 percent of life is just showing up [a variation on the well-known comedian's line]. When it comes to satisfying a quorum requirement, though, showing up is even more important than that.’ ”
In response to his decision, the NLRB announced today that it is temporarily suspending the implementation of changes to its representation process, which had taken effect April 30. Board Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce said in a statement that the NLRB is reviewing the court decision and is considering its response.
“We continue to believe that the amendments represent a significant improvement in our process and serve the public interest by eliminating unnecessary litigation,” he said. “We are determined to move forward.”
Meanwhile, NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon withdrew today the guidance to regional offices he issued prior to the effective date and advised regional directors to revert to their previous practices for election petitions starting today. (To read that guidance and for a bit more history on all this, here is my Leader Board blog post from April 27.)
Even before the guidance’s withdrawal was announced, employment lawyer Fito Agraz, a shareholder with Ogletree Deakins in its Dallas office, said the judge’s decision, “combined with a decision earlier this year by a federal district court judge in South Carolina – finding the NLRB lacked the statutory authority to require employers to post notices regarding employee rights under the NLRA (here is my blog post about that) – leaves the NLRB in a position of having to table some of its proactive initiatives.” No kidding!
Not surprisingly, the National Association of Manufacturers — which refers to the NLRB rule as the “ambush-elections” rule — had this to say last night:
“Overturning the ambush-elections rule is a key victory for job creators and the 12 million men and women working in manufacturing. The NLRB has consistently overstepped its authority and attempted to enforce unnecessary and damaging rules that threaten workplace relations by creating hostile work environments where none exist. In invalidating the ambush-elections rule, the court rightly rejected one of the board’s most misguided policies. The NAM will continue to lead the way in opposing rules and regulations that stand in the way of job creation and economic growth.”
Employment attorney Michael Lotito, who just this week left Jackson Lewis to join San Francisco-based Littler, was a little less one-sided:
“The judge’s decision is a setback for the NLRB, but it is also an incentive for the board to consider the rule in its entirety and not piecemeal as it did. If it does, the legality of the president’s recess appointees will be critical to whether the NLRB has the power to act. In sum, this debate is far from over.”
I think Lotito’s last line says it all.
May 15, 2012
|
Posted by Kristen Frasch

Categories:


