Category: NLRB

Union Election Procedures

Union Election Procedures to Change in 2020

In December 2019, the National Labor Relations Board finalized a rule to modify its union election procedures. This action will slow down the election process, giving companies more time to respond to election petitions. It ends a five-year reign of so-called “quickie elections.”

The new procedures will be in place beginning April 16, 2020.

2014 “Quickie-Election” Rules

The NLRB substantially changed its election procedures in 2014. Under the Obama Administration, the Democrat-led NLRB revised the rules to expedite elections. Those changes were primarily intended to reduce companies’ opportunity to respond to union organizing efforts. In other words, making it easier for employees to unionize.

In addition to condensing the timeline, the 2014 rules created a new disclosure requirement for employers. They required companies to provide extensive information about their workforce and response to the election petition in writing often in one week.

More Balanced Approach

As of April 16, 2020, the rules will change again to give employers more time to respond. The now Republican-led Board has not, however, completely reverted to the pre-2014 union election procedures.

There are many nuances to these procedures. Here are just some of the most impactful changes:

More Time Before Pre-Election Hearing

The 2014 rules provided for a pre-election hearing as soon as 8 days after the union filed an election petition.

The new rules delays hearing to the 14th business day. As before, the NLRB Regional office can postpone the hearing for good cause.

Statement of Positions Remains

Employers understandably did not appreciate the new requirement of preparing and submitting a Statement of Position after receiving an election petition. However, the NLRB has decided to keep that requirement in place. But they are making a couple of compromises in this area.

First, employers will now have 8 business days to file the Statement of Position. Under the 2014 rules, they often only had 7 calendar days, with a hearing to follow the next day.

Second, unions must now also file a written Statement of Position. The union has until 3 days before the hearing to do so.

Expanded Scope of Pre-Election Hearings

The 2014 union election procedures limited the subject matter of pre-election hearings to relatively few subjects. Fundamentally, they were limited to determining whether a question of representation exists. This required an appropriate bargaining unit to be identified, but did not allow employers to litigate individual voter eligibility or inclusion in the bargaining unit before the election. If the parties did not mutually agree on those issues, the NLRB would decide them after the election, if necessary, depending on the results.

Under the new rules, voter eligibility and unit inclusion issues usually will be part of the pre-election hearing process. This includes litigation over supervisory status. That question can be significant, as supervisors are not eligible to join a unionized bargaining unit. Moreover, employers can rely on supervisors as part of their election preparations. Thus, it is valuable to know who does and doesn’t qualify in that capacity under the National Labor Relations Act before the election takes place.

The new rules will also bring back the right for parties to call witnesses at the pre-election hearings. The 2014 rules limited the ways parties could present evidence at this stage.

Post-Hearing Briefs

With a focus on quick elections, the 2014 rules eliminated written post-hearing briefs by the parties. They would just be something else taking time to prepare, read, and respond to, after all!

The new union election procedures will allow the parties to summarize their positions in writing after the pre-election hearing. They have 5 business days after the hearing to submit briefs. The hearing officer can allow up to 10 additional days.

Scheduling the Election

Before the 2014 rule changes, union elections usually occurred 25-30 days after the direction of an election. That means, once the parties resolved all preliminary matters, either mutually or by hearing decision, the election would take place about 4 weeks later.

The 2014 union election procedures, moved that timeline up considerably. They required a Regional Director to “schedule the election for the earliest date practicable . . . .” That resulted in reducing the time between petition and election from 38 days to 23 days. The NLRB shows these statistics here.

The rules effective April 16, 2020, will return closer to the pre-2014 timeline. They provide that regional directors “normally will not schedule an election before the 20th business day after the date of the direction of election.”

More Time for Voter Lists

Once an election is scheduled, the employer must give the union a list of all eligible voters with contact information. Under the 2014 rules, companies only had 2 days to do so following the direction of an election. Now they will have 5 days.

Good and Bad News for Employers

Most companies should welcome these changes to the NLRB’s union election procedures. If nothing else, it gives you more time to respond if you do receive an election petition. And most employers will welcome the time to review their options in hopes of staying union-free.

But, there is a potential short-term downside to the rule changes. Significantly, they don’t take effect until April 16, 2020. Before then, the 2014 union-friendly rules remain in effect. This may result in unions rushing to begin election proceedings under the “quickie election” rules.

Companies that have any concern of a potential union organizing effort should evaluate the heightened possibility of an election petition in the first quarter of 2020. It is always better to be proactive if you want to keep a union out. This primarily means doing the right thing by your employees. But it also includes knowing the relevant procedures, legal parameters, and other logistical best practices. If you have any concerns in this area, you should consult with an experienced labor attorney sooner rather than later.

 

For more on what the NLRB has been up to, check out our upcoming webinar: NLRB 2020: Updates for All Private Sector Employers

Confidentiality in Workplace Investigations

NLRB Restores Confidentiality in Workplace Investigations

A December 16, 2019 NLRB decision reinstated employers’ discretion to maintain confidentiality in workplace investigations. In 2015 the federal Labor Board had found that employees’ rights to communicate with each other generally trumped company secrecy in this area. The new ruling allows investigatory confidentiality to be the default, rather than the exception.

Previous Standard

In 2015, an Obama-era NLRB panel with a Democrat majority held companies to the burden of demonstrating a specific need for confidentiality regarding a particular investigation. In other words, the default was the employers could not force employees to keep quiet about an ongoing internal inquiry.

Under the Banner Estrella Medical Center ruling, employers could only require confidentiality upon affirmative evidence that:

  • witnesses need protection;
  • evidence is in danger of destruction;
  • testimony is in danger of fabrication; or
  • there is a need to prevent a cover-up.

In that decision, the Board found that, absent these factors, employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act outweighed company interests in preserving the integrity of an investigation. Section 7 of the NLRA protects employees who engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection regarding terms and conditions of employment.

Concern with Lack of Confidentiality

A strenuous critique of the Banner Estrella Medical Center decision was that it was inconsistent with EEOC guidance encouraging confidentiality in workplace investigations. Specifically including investigations of sexual harassment, the EEOC has long emphasized that employer procedures for resolving internal complaints “should ensure confidentiality as much as possible. . . .”

Over the past few years, the EEOC and NLRB have attempted to reconcile their inconsistent stances. The new NLRB position eliminates the conflict between these federal agencies.

Changing the Presumption (Back)

The NLRB’s 3-1 decision in a case involving Unique Thrift Store once again permits employers to ask their employees to keep investigations confidential. They can do so as the default, without first evaluating prescribed criteria.

Unique Thrift Store maintained the following work rules for employees:

  • “Reporting persons and those who are interviewed are expected to maintain confidentiality regarding these investigations.”
  • “The following list . . . are examples of behaviors that . . . may lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination . . . . Refusing to courteously cooperate in any company investigation. This includes, but is not limited to, unauthorized discussion of investigation or interview with other team members . . . .”

The Board majority overruled the Banner Estrella standard, in part, for its failure “to consider the importance of confidentiality assurances to both employers and employees during an ongoing investigation.”

Open Question on Investigatory Confidentiality Rules

The NLRB’s 2019 Unique Thrift Store decision didn’t actually determine whether the above rules are lawful. The Board withheld ultimate judgment in that regard because the rules themselves weren’t clearly limited to the duration of an investigation. In other words, they arguably required employees to keep quiet even after the company had completed its investigation.

The Board did not feel it had enough information to evaluate whether Unique Thrift Store had sufficient justification for requiring post-investigation confidentiality. So, it sent the case back down for further proceedings regarding that question.

Impact on Employers

Under this new ruling, companies can go back to directing employees to maintain confidentiality during an investigation. They can generally implement and enforce written rules to that effect. But they should be careful in the wording of such rules and directives. Requiring employees to stay silent even after an investigation has concluded may be more problematic. In that situation, your company should evaluate the specific circumstances and, ideally, consult with an experienced labor attorney.

Receive more updates on labor and employment law from Horton Law PLLC. Follow us on LinkedIn or subscribe to our free email newsletter.

Click for the full decision in:

Apogee Retail LLC d/b/a Unique Thrift Store, 368 NLRB No. 144 (2019)

Banner Health System d/b/a Banner Estrella Medical Center, 362 NLRB 1108 (2015)

Company Email Use

Employers Regain Control Over Company Email Use

Say “goodbye” to Purple Communications and “hello” to Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino. On December 17, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board released a new ruling about employees’ company email use. Specifically, the NLRB reversed a 2014 decision that had granted some employees the right to use their work email account for certain non-work purposes. What does this mean? And how long will it last?

Purple Communications Limited Private Company Property Rights

In December 2014, the NLRB decided a case involving Purple Communications. That decision gave a colorful name to a surprising encroachment on private companies’ control over their email systems.

A divided 3-2 Board for the first time ruled that employees had a federally-protected right to use their company work emails to engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection. That refers to employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. It’s the law that allows employees to join unions. And it also allows them to engage in other forms of joint activities toward improving their work conditions.

Three Democratic NLRB members comprised the Purple Communications majority. The two Republican members dissented.

The majority identified some limitations on their 2014 ruling:

  • “First, it applies only to employees who have already been granted access to the employer’s email system in the course of their work and does not require employers to provide such access.”
  • “Second, an employer may justify a total ban on nonwork use of email, including Section 7 use on nonworking time, by demonstrating that special circumstances make the ban necessary to maintain production or discipline. Absent justification for a total ban, the employer may apply uniform and consistently enforced controls over its email system to the extent such controls are necessary to maintain production and discipline.”

Employer Property Interest Overtakes Employee Interests

A 3-1 Republican NLRB majority has reaffirmed that federal law doesn’t entitle employees to use employer-owned equipment for non-work purposes.

The NLRB now holds that employers can restrict employees’ company email use for non-work purposes, including activity otherwise protected by Section 7.

The Board majority observed that “in modern workplaces employees also have access to smartphones, personal email accounts, and social media, which provide additional avenues of communication, including for Section 7–related purposes”. They did, however, allow that there might be an unusual workplace devoid of such alternative means of communication. There, perhaps, Section 7 rights might trump the employer’s property rights. But the majority did not attempt to hypothesize such a scenario.

On the last day of her term, outgoing Democrat Member Lauren McFarren dissented. She contends, “The majority’s decision aims to turn back the clock on the ability of employees to communicate with each other at work . . . .”

A Philosophical Divide

As with many questions under federal labor law, the NLRB’s ruling on this issue reflects a partisan debate. Several other decisions issued around the same day as Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino demonstrate the same reality. Democrats and Republicans read the National Labor Relations Act differently. As a result, NLRB precedent may only last slightly longer than a Presidential term. Purple Communications, for example, was the law of the land for almost exactly five years.

Should Employers Change Their Policies?

If you had proactively responded to the NLRB’s 2014 pronouncement that employees had a right to use their work email for non-work purposes, then you might have changed or adopted written policies to that end. If so, you could consider revising those policies again. But it’s not a decision to be made automatically.

Employers who, for example, already allow employees to use work emails for a range of personal communications, should be cautious in how they suddenly limit that freedom. If nothing else, a strict contrary policy could anger and alienate employees. In extreme cases, it might even contribute to the type of employee dissatisfaction that contributes to unionization efforts. You probably don’t want that. (Read: Are Unions Bad? 4 Tips for Employers)

And if you do change your company email use policy or practice now, make sure to keep your ears open for the next time Democrats are in the majority on the NLRB.

To stay up-to-day on important labor law topics, sign up for our email newsletter here or follow us on LinkedIn!