New rules could threaten employer, employee communications
The National Labor Relations Board has issued proposed rule changes that could expedite the union selection process, according to a document released by law firm Jackson Lewis LLP. Chairman Wilma Liebman hinted that such action is currently under consideration.
June 22, 2011 at 08:42 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The National Labor Relations Board has issued proposed rule changes that could expedite the union selection process, according to a document released by law firm Jackson Lewis LLP. Chairman Wilma Liebman hinted that such action is currently under consideration.
The Board plans to make the following changes:
- Acceleration of the initial hearing date following the filing of a representation petition
- Mandating expansive pre-hearing discovery of issues
- Curtailing the ability to litigate issues before an election
- Eliminating the right to file post-hearing briefs
About of 95 percent of all representation elections are held within 56 days, but the new procedures could shave 30 days off the current process. With these changes, elections could be held in slightly more than three weeks from the filing of a petition.
Additionally,the Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed another rule that would make the activities of attorneys, consultants and employers publically reportable.
The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) would require the reporting of arrangements, receipts and expenditures derived from providing services, called “persuader activity.” Generally, attorney legal advice regarding lawful employer communications has been exempt from the reporting requirement, Jackson Lewis says, but the DOL's proposed rules would make much of the advice provided by attorneys reportable under law, even if the employer's communication is lawful.
The firm believes the proposed DOL rule will inhibit employers from effectively and lawfully communicating facts and opinions to employees prior to elections.
There is a 60-day public comment period for both proposals, followed by agency analysis and consideration, before final rules are promulgated. The rules also are subject to court review.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
- 1Capital Markets Partner Rejoins O’Melveny Ahead of Expected Uptick in Demand
- 2Pharma Company Faces Breach-of-Contract Claim Over $1.3 Million in Unpaid Invoices
- 3KPMG Law Seeks Alternative Business License, Shaking Up Legal Status Quo
- 4Pittsburgh's Reed Smith, K&L Gates Join Fight to Save Nippon Steel-U.S. Steel Merger
- 5Milbank, Wachtell, Ropes and Pittsburgh Duo Aim to Save Nippon Steel-U.S. Steel Merger
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250