The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a Final Rule modifying three aspects of its election procedures: its blocking charge policy, the voluntary recognition bar doctrine, and its rule regarding National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Section 9(a) recognition in the construction industry.

The NLRB issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 12, 2019, and received approximately 80 comments from the public. The Final Rule was published April 1, 2020 and will be effective beginning May 30, 2020 (60 days after publication). The final rule contains some minor differences from the proposed rule.

Blocking Charge Policy

A “blocking charge” is an unfair labor practice charge alleging unlawful conduct which, if true, might interfere with employees’ ability to make a free and uncoerced choice of representative.

Currently, the NLRB suspends processing of an NLRB representation petition if a “blocking charge” is filed by the union that filed the representation petition. That means the election or results of the election can be delayed for months or years.

In refining the blocking charge policy, the NLRB noted in its Final Rule that, among other criticisms, “the potential for abuse and manipulation of that policy by incumbent unions seeking to avoid a challenge to their representative status.” The NLRB agreed with comments it received on the proposed rule “that the blocking-charge policy impedes, rather than protects, employee free choice.”

In its place, the NLRB will implement a “vote-and-impound” procedure, whereby petitions will continue to be processed, and elections held on the scheduled date. If the ULP charge is not resolved prior to the election, the ballots would be cast, but impounded until the ULP charge is resolved or withdrawn, or until 60 days pass without a ULP complaint issuing. (In general, a ULP complaint will issue when a determination is made, after the ULP charge is investigated, that there is reasonable cause to believe the ULP charge allegations.)

Voluntary Recognition Bar

The NLRA permits an employer to voluntarily recognize a union that has the support of the majority of the employer’s employees (instead of having been selected by a majority of the employees voting in an NLRB representation election). The NLRB’s “voluntary recognition bar” policy requires employees to wait a “reasonable period of time” (at least six months) after the date of the parties’ first bargaining session and no more than one year after that date before seeking to oust a union that had been voluntarily recognized as their bargaining representative.

Under the NLRB’s Final Rule, employees will have 45 days following an employer’s notice of voluntary recognition of a union in which to file a petition for an election to determine whether a majority of the employees wish to be represented could be filed and processed.

The new rule overrules the NLRB’s decision in Lamons Gasket Co., 357 NLRB 739 (2011), and reinstates its similar test set forth in Dana Corp., 351 NLRB 434 (2007).

The NLRB also decided that the employer and/or the union has to notify the NLRB that recognition has been granted and that the notice has to be posted in conspicuous places and has to be distributed to unit employees electronically if that is how the employer customarily communicates with its employees.

Section 9(a) Recognition in Construction Industry

Under Section 8(f) of the NLRA, an employer primarily engaged in the construction industry may enter into a collective bargaining relationship with a union without receiving proof of employees’ desire to unionize. As a result, that bargaining relationship cannot bar a petition for an NLRB election. Employees or other unions may file an election petition at any time during an 8(f) relationship. Further, either party to an 8(f) contract may terminate the collective bargaining relationship upon contract expiration. By contrast, in Section 9(a) relationships unions enjoy an ongoing presumption of majority support, even following contract expiration.

Under the NLRB Final Rule, and “[i]n the interest of restoring protection of employee free choice in the construction industry,” contract language claiming majority employee support creating (9)(a) recognition alone will no longer be able to convert an 8(f) relationship to a 9(a) relationship. Instead, “positive evidence of majority union employee support” will be required. The Rule overrules Staunton Fuel & Material, 335 NLRB 717 (2001), which held that parties’ contract language may be sufficient to prove and establish a binding 9(a) bargaining relationship.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer any questions.

 

 

Print:
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn
Photo of Howard M. Bloom Howard M. Bloom

Howard M. Bloom is a Principal in the Boston, Massachusetts, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He has practiced labor and employment law representing exclusively employers for more than 36 years.

Mr. Bloom counsels clients in a variety of industries on labor law issues.

Howard M. Bloom is a Principal in the Boston, Massachusetts, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He has practiced labor and employment law representing exclusively employers for more than 36 years.

Mr. Bloom counsels clients in a variety of industries on labor law issues. He trains and advises executives, managers and supervisors on union awareness and positive employee relations, and assists employers in connection with union card-signing efforts, traditional union representation and corporate campaigns, and union decertification campaigns. He also represents clients at the National Labor Relations Board in connection with bargaining unit issues, objections and challenges, as well as unfair labor practice investigations and trials. Mr. Bloom also has been the spokesperson at countless first and successor contract collective bargaining negotiations, and regularly advises on collective bargaining agreement administration issues, including grievance/arbitration issues.

Mr. Bloom has appeared before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, several U.S. District Courts, the National Labor Relations Board, the Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

Mr. Bloom speaks frequently to employer groups on a wide range of labor and employment law topics. He also has written extensively on labor and employment law for a variety of publications, including New England Business magazine, The Boston Globe and the Boston Business Journal. He also is editor of and a frequent contributor to the Jackson Lewis Labor & Collective Bargaining Blog.

While attending law school, he was the Executive Editor of The Advocate: the Suffolk University Law School Journal and President of the Student Bar Association.

Mr. Bloom is a diehard baseball fan. His first book, The Baseball Uncyclopedia: A Highly Opinionated Myth-Busting Guide to the Great American Game, was published in February 2006.

Photo of Thomas V. Walsh Thomas V. Walsh

Tom Walsh is a Principal in the White Plains, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He received a B.A., summa cum laude, from Long Island University and his Juris Doctor from St. John’s University. He is the author of “Recent Developments…

Tom Walsh is a Principal in the White Plains, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He received a B.A., summa cum laude, from Long Island University and his Juris Doctor from St. John’s University. He is the author of “Recent Developments in the Weingarten Doctrine, The Board Shifts to the Right,” for the St. John’s University Journal of Legal Commentary. He is also co-author of the Atlantic Legal Foundation’s series “Leveling the Playing Field – What Charter School Leaders Need to Know About Union Organizing.” Mr. Walsh is a member of the New York State Bar Association and of the American Bar Association, and participates in the labor and employment law sections of both organizations.

Photo of Jonathan J. Spitz Jonathan J. Spitz

Jonathan J. Spitz is a Principal in the Atlanta, Georgia office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and he is the national co-Coordinator of the Firm’s Collegiate and Professional Sports industry group.

Mr. Spitz coordinates Jackson Lewis’ labor practice for the Southeast region of the…

Jonathan J. Spitz is a Principal in the Atlanta, Georgia office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and he is the national co-Coordinator of the Firm’s Collegiate and Professional Sports industry group.

Mr. Spitz coordinates Jackson Lewis’ labor practice for the Southeast region of the United States. He understands the practical and operational needs of clients, helping design pragmatic strategies to minimize risk and maximize performance. He was selected as a “Leader in the Field” by Chambers USA in 2009 and 2010.

He has represented management in numerous counter-organizing drives and participated in dozens of unfair labor practice proceedings, discrimination charges and other matters before the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and various federal and state administrative agencies, as well as in collective bargaining, arbitration and in employment litigation before state and federal courts. Mr. Spitz regularly counsels employers in employee relations and discipline and discharge matters, and also assists employers in drafting employment policies and in complying with the Family and Medical Leave Act, drug testing laws and regulations, the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal and state employment laws.

Mr. Spitz has extensive experience in assisting employers to create union and litigation avoidance strategies suitable to the individual organization, values and industry. He has led teams conducting multi-facility labor vulnerability assessments and has advised employers in responding to corporate campaigns and demands for card check and neutrality.

Mr. Spitz is a contributing author of Employer’s Guide to Union Organizing Campaigns, Aspen Publishers, 2007. In addition, he has authored many articles regarding labor and employment law issues which have appeared in national trade publications.

Mr. Spitz is admitted to practice in the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eleventh and District of Columbia Circuit Courts of Appeals; the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia; and the Georgia Supreme Court.

He received his Bachelor of Arts degree, cum laude, from Tufts University in 1990. He earned his J.D. from Emory University in 1993