The early evidence is in, and the results are clear. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Regional Directors decidedly have not embraced the General Counsel’s (GC) guidelines on conducting manual ballot (in-person) elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. Memorandum GC 20-10 “Suggested Manual Election Protocols” (July 6, 2020). For more on the
Articles Discussing Labor Union Organizing.
The National Labor Relations Board Union (NLRBU), which represents the employees of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), wants NLRB General Counsel (GC) Peter Robb to rescind his guidelines about how to conduct representation elections in-person during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The alternative is to conduct such elections by mail ballot.
The legal saga of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) new election rule took another turn on July 1 when a federal judge found the rule was a proper exercise of statutory interpretation.*
The entire new rule was scheduled to go into effect on May 31, but U.S. District Court
After months of permitting almost exclusively mail ballot elections due to concerns surrounding the spread of COVID-19, the National Labor Relations Board released “suggested” protocols on July 6, 2020 for holding manual elections. These protocols will facilitate a return to in-person secret ballot voting, which is generally considered far
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Peter Robb appears to want NLRB Regional Directors to give more consideration to holding manual, rather than mail, ballot elections than they have during the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to Employment Law360, during a National Employment Law Council webinar, Robb announced he will post
U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the District of Columbia has issued a detailed memorandum opinion explaining the reasoning behind her May 30, 2020 order granting summary judgment invalidating portions of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) revised rules for representation case elections. AFL-CIO v. NLRB, No.
In an abbreviated order issued on May 30, 2020, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) improperly implemented portions of the final rules on representation elections initially scheduled to take effect on April 16, 2020.
The National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) has implemented several parts of its new election rule. U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson enjoined parts of the rule that, in her view, were not lawfully promulgated. AFL-CIO v. NLRB, No. 20-CV-0675 (D. D.C. May 30, 2020). For more on the ruling,
On Saturday, May 30, 2020, one day before the effective date of the National Labor Relations Board’s Final Rule on Representation Case Procedures, a judge on the U.S.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has blocked several of the provisions of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) new election rule. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson court held that those aspects of the new rule were not lawfully promulgated, because the NLRB did not follow the
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has lifted its stay of a mail ballot election ordered by a Regional Director and denied the employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s decision, based on the COVID-19 pandemic, to order a mail, rather than manual, ballot election. Atlas Pacific Engineering Company,
On April 1, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finalized a series of highly anticipated additional amendments to its union election procedures. The final rule, which can be found here targets the following three areas: the NLRB’s processing of …
In an unpublished decision, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has denied an acute- care hospital’s request to stay a representation election based on the COVID-19 pandemic. Crozer-Chester Medical Center, Case 04-RC-257107 (Apr. 23, 2020). The union’s representation petition was filed on February 28, 2020. The union, which did not
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has raised the possibility that it might make changes in its Johnnie’s Poultry standards, which establish safeguards to reduce the possibility an employer, while questioning an employee in preparation for a trial or hearing, might interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise