Wednesday’s Federal Register will feature a set of proposed amendments to National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) regulations that, if adopted, could significantly simplify the process wherein workers vote whether to unionize, reducing employers’ time to react to unionization efforts.
According to a press release from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the proposed rules would streamline the representation election process by “reduc[ing] unnecessary litigation, streamlin[ing] pre- and post-election procedures, and facilitat[ing] the use of electronic communications and document filing.”
Specifically, the press release notes that the amendments would:
- allow for electronic filing of election petitions and other documents;
- ensure that employees, employers, and unions receive and exchange timely information they need to understand and participate in the representation case process;
- standardize timeframes for parties to resolve or litigate issues before and after elections;
- require parties to identify issues and describe evidence soon after an election petition is filed to facilitate resolution and eliminate unnecessary litigation;
- defer litigation of most voter eligibility issues until after the election;
- require employers to provide a final voter list in electronic form soon after the scheduling of an election, including voters’ telephone numbers and e-mail addresses when available;
- consolidate all election-related appeals to the NLRB into a single postelection appeals process and thereby eliminate the delay in holding elections currently attributable to the possibility of preelection appeals; and
- make Board review of postelection decisions discretionary rather than mandatory.
The NLRB’s lone Republican, Brian Hayes, has dissented from the proposed rulemaking, noting that the current representation election process is already operating soundly, meeting performance goals, and providing timely and fair resolutions in the vast majority of cases. Hayes’ scathing dissent notes that the Board has announced a process “that tilts heavily against employers’ rights to engage in legitimate free speech and to petition the government for redress” without making “any attempt to identify particular problems in cases where the [existing] process has failed.” He continues, noting that “the myriad issues raised by the proposed rules cry out for far greater public participation in the rulemaking process” and that the Board’s actions are “in apparent furtherance of the interests of a narrow constituency, and at the great expense of undermining public trust in the fairness of Board elections.”
Upon publication in Wednesday’s Register, public comments to the proposed rules may be submitted at www.regulations.gov for 60 days. For more information on the proposed rules, stay tuned to HRHero.
Learn more about union organizing and employers’ rights in Mastering HR: Labor and Organizing
This is great news! As an HR professional who got into the field because we value employees and want to ensure that they are treated well, I am very happy that this change is a possibility.
The NLRB is supposed to be impartial, not a political arm of the Democratic party. This sort of political payback to unions is disgusting. Obama’s agenda to unionize every workplace is counterproductive and undermines the rights of business. Unions are labor cartels. They raise the cost of doing business. If an employer chooses to pay the higher cost so be it, but to stack the deck against business is immoral and I suspect illegal. Hope this fails.
I’m guessing that “Cloudy Rockwell” isnt’ really an HR Professional.
Anyone in HR would see this for what it really is. Years back employees joined unions to insure they were receiving fair pay and benefits, but that was before OSHA, FLSA, FMLA, ADEA and ADAAA which now provided ample protection. Employees realize this as well, for the most part, which is why in the last decade we have seen a large decrease in unionization rates. Why pay a union for something that the government is regulating already? As a last ditch effort to survive, unions dumped millions in PACs for candidates in 2008. The expectation was that in exchange for this money the elected officials, including President Obama, would pass EFCA. We now know that this didn’t happen. As a compromise President Obama’s NLRB is trying to enact some of the changes that would have legislatively occured if EFCA passed.
As stated above, the Board is supposed to be an unbiased party. Based on these newly proposed rules, the scales have undoubtly been tipped in favor of unions.