NLRB’s “quickie election” rule struck down
A federal judge has struck down the National Labor Relations Boards (NLRB) controversial quickie election rule.
May 16, 2012 at 06:38 AM
22 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A federal judge has struck down the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) controversial “quickie election” rule.
The rule—which went into effect just two weeks ago when a district court rejected the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's request to issue a temporary injunction until after a final ruling on the election changes—shortened the time frame for union representation elections. The NLRB claims the shortened election cycle would minimize unnecessary litigation, but businesses contended that it gave unions an unfair advantage.
On Monday, in Chamber of Commerce v. NLRB, District of Columbia District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the “quickie election” rule is unenforceable because only two board members participated in the final vote to pass it. In December 2011, the then two Democratic NLRB members—Chairman Mark Pearce and Craig Becker—approved the election changes. In his decision, Boasberg said a minimum of three board members is required to participate in a final vote, and that “because no quorum ever existed for the pivotal vote in question, the Court must hold that the challenged rule is invalid.”
“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,” says Littler Mendelson Partner Michael Lotito.
Barnes & Thornburg Partner Keith Brodie told InsideCounsel that while the decision only affects enforceability in the near term, it could ultimately delay the rule's final implementation.
For now, union representation elections must continue under the old procedures. However, Boasberg did emphasize that his decision doesn't “necessarily spell the end of the final rule for all time,” because the board could revote on the “quickie election” rule with the proper quorum.
For more analysis on the recent ruling, see legal updates from Baker Hostetler, Jackson Lewis, Ogletree Deakins, Reed Smith and Winston & Strawn.
For more InsideCounsel coverage on the NLRB's “quickie election” rule, read:
A federal judge has struck down the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) controversial “quickie election” rule.
The rule—which went into effect just two weeks ago when a district court rejected the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's request to issue a temporary injunction until after a final ruling on the election changes—shortened the time frame for union representation elections. The NLRB claims the shortened election cycle would minimize unnecessary litigation, but businesses contended that it gave unions an unfair advantage.
On Monday, in Chamber of Commerce v. NLRB, District of Columbia District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the “quickie election” rule is unenforceable because only two board members participated in the final vote to pass it. In December 2011, the then two Democratic NLRB members—Chairman Mark Pearce and Craig Becker—approved the election changes. In his decision, Boasberg said a minimum of three board members is required to participate in a final vote, and that “because no quorum ever existed for the pivotal vote in question, the Court must hold that the challenged rule is invalid.”
“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,” says
For now, union representation elections must continue under the old procedures. However, Boasberg did emphasize that his decision doesn't “necessarily spell the end of the final rule for all time,” because the board could revote on the “quickie election” rule with the proper quorum.
For more analysis on the recent ruling, see legal updates from
For more InsideCounsel coverage on the NLRB's “quickie election” rule, read:
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
© 2024 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 AllSemiconductor Component Maker Accused of Deceiving Investors About Market Downturn, Export Curbs
3 minute readRecent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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