With over 58,000 workers reportedly unionizing so far in 2023 and the number of representation petitions on the rise, it comes as no surprise that the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) continues to make changes to expedite the unionization process.

Specifically, in a recent rule published on August 24, 2023, which will become effective on December 26, 2023, the Board significantly accelerated its pre-election timeline by reverting to the NLRB’s “quickie” election rules initially implemented in 2014. 

Prior History of NLRB Election Rules

When a union files a petition to represent a group of employees, the Board requires specific action from both the employer and the union prior to proceeding to an election, and may hold hearings to resolved disputed legal issues prior to the commencement of an election. 

Over the last decade, the applicable rules governing the election process have changed dramatically.

For instance, in 2014, the Board implemented what have been referred to as “quickie” election rules, which substantially decreased the amount of time between the filing of a representation petition and the commencement of an election.

Then, just five years later, in 2019, the Board clawed back some of the 2014 changes and provided additional time to both parties with regard to certain filings, requests for extensions and pre- and post-election proceedings.  (See our prior discussion here.) 

The 2019 rules were subject to challenge in court; some of the rules were struck due to the Board’s failure to utilize the rule-making procedures, while the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the expansion of pre-election litigation and the imposition of a mandatory delay between the direction of election and the election itself were procedural in nature and not subject to notice and comment rule-making.  This led to the Board rescinding certain provisions of the 2019 election rules earlier this year

New Election Rules Set To Go Into Effect on December 26, 2023

Now, in a much-anticipated reversal, the Board announced its intent to fully revert back to the 2014 rules—effective December 26, 2023.  Perhaps the most notable change is the exclusion of individual eligibility and inclusion issues from a potential pre-election hearing; now, those issues will be litigated, if at all, after an election is conducted rather than before.  Under the new rules, the only litigable issue before an election is held relates to whether a question concerning representation exists. 

Below is a brief summary of the changes to the pre-election timeline set to go into effect at the end of this year: 

Rule TopicCurrent NLRB Rule
(Applicable untilDecember 25, 2023)
New NLRB Rule
(Effective on December 26, 2023)
Scheduling of Pre-Election Hearings14 business days from when an employer receives a Notice of Hearing8 business days from when an employer receives a Notice of Hearing
Postponement of Pre-Election Hearing and Employer’s Position StatementRegional Directors had discretion to postpone a hearing for an unlimited amount of time2 business days if a party demonstrates “special circumstances” and more than 2 business if a party demonstrates “extraordinary circumstances”
Submission of Employer’s Statement of PositionBy noon 8 business days (or 10 calendar days) after employer receives a Notice of HearingBy noon the day before the hearing (i.e., usually 7 calendar days after being served a Notice of Hearing)
Responsive Statement of Position3 business days before the pre-election hearingOrally at the start of the hearing
Posting of Notice of Petition For Election5 business days after employer receives a Notice of Hearing2 business days after receiving a Notice of Hearing
Post-Hearing BriefsUp to 5 business days after the hearing, with an extension of 10 additional business days upon a showing of good causeOnly with the regional director’s special permission
Timing Between Decision and Direction of Election (“DDE”) and Notice of ElectionRegional Directors had discretion to convey election details in a DDE or in a later-issued when Notice of ElectionRegional Directors should specify the election details in the DDE and simultaneously transmit the Notice of Election with the DDE
Scheduling of an ElectionElections had to be scheduled for “the earliest date practicable” but there had to be a 20-business day waiting period between a DDE and the electionNo 20 business-day waiting period and elections must now be scheduled for “the earliest date practicable”

Looking Ahead

These new rules will certainly provide an even greater advantage to unions during the organizing process—particularly, when combined with the new standard espoused by the NLRB in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023), which puts extensive pressure on employers to voluntarily recognize unions or promptly initiate election proceedings. 

As noted, in addition to significantly reducing the amount of time for holding an election, one of the most significant aspects of these new rules is the elimination of pre-election hearings on issues beyond whether an election should be held at all.  In other words, disputes concerning whether individuals are supervisors or whether certain other positions should fall within the petitioned-for unit may not be litigated at all until—potentially—after a vote is held.  These thorny issues can make communicating during an election campaign and bargaining an initial contract very difficult and legally problematic for employers. 

Procedurally, these rules are styled as “direct final rules,” which mean they go into effect on the listed date (of December 26, 2023).  The Board has indicated that it will not go through a notice and comment period, because, according to the Board, the new changes are all procedural in nature.  It is unclear whether these rules will be challenged in federal court in the same manner as the 2019 rules. 

We will continue to follow these developments. 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Steven Porzio Steven Porzio

Steven J. Porzio is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Labor-Management Relations Group. Steve assists both unionized and union-free clients with a full range of labor and employee relations matters. He represents employers in contract…

Steven J. Porzio is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Labor-Management Relations Group. Steve assists both unionized and union-free clients with a full range of labor and employee relations matters. He represents employers in contract negotiations, arbitrations, and representation and unfair labor practice cases before the National Labor Relations Board.

Steve has experience conducting vulnerability assessments and providing management training in union and litigation avoidance, leave management, wage and hour, and hiring and firing practices. He provides strategic and legal advice in certification and decertification elections, union organizing drives, corporate campaigns, picketing and union contract campaigns. Steve has represented employers in a number of different industries, including higher education, health care, construction and manufacturing in successful efforts against unions in election and corporate campaigns.

In addition to his traditional labor law work, Steve assists companies with handbook and personnel policy drafting and review, daily management of employee disciplines and terminations, and general advice and counsel on compliance with federal and state employment laws.

Steve’s litigation experience includes work on matters before state and federal courts, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, the New York State Division of Human Rights and various other administrative agencies. He has litigated matters involving age, race, national origin, gender and disability discrimination, wage and hour, whistleblower and wrongful termination claims.

While attending the Syracuse University College of Law, Steve served as the editor-in-chief of the Syracuse Science and Technology Law Reporter. He also received the Robert F. Koretz scholarship, awarded in recognition of excellence in the study of labor law.

Photo of Joshua Fox Joshua Fox

Joshua S. Fox is a senior counsel in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Sports, Labor-Management Relations, Class and Collective Actions and Wage and Hour Groups.

As a member of the Sports Law Group, Josh has represented several…

Joshua S. Fox is a senior counsel in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Sports, Labor-Management Relations, Class and Collective Actions and Wage and Hour Groups.

As a member of the Sports Law Group, Josh has represented several Major League Baseball Clubs in all aspects of the salary arbitration process, including the Miami Marlins, Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers, Kansas City Royals, San Francisco Giants, Tampa Bay Rays and Toronto Blue Jays. In particular, Josh successfully represented the Miami Marlins in their case against All-Star Catcher J.T. Realmuto, which was a significant club victory in salary arbitration. Josh also represents Major League Baseball and its clubs in ongoing litigation brought by current and former minor league players who allege minimum wage and overtime violations. Josh participated on the team that successfully defended Major League Baseball in a wage-and-hour lawsuit brought by a former volunteer for the 2013 All-Star FanFest, who alleged minimum wage violations under federal and state law. The lawsuit was dismissed by the federal district court, and was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Josh also has extensive experience representing professional sports leagues and teams in grievance arbitration proceedings, including playing a vital role in all aspects of the grievance challenging the suspension for use of performance-enhancing drugs of then-New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez. Josh also has counseled NHL Clubs and served on the trial teams for grievances alleging violations of the collective bargaining agreement, including cases involving use of performance-enhancing substances, domestic violence issues, and supplementary discipline for on-ice conduct. He has played a key role in representing professional sports leagues in all aspects of their collective bargaining negotiations with players and officials, including the Major League Baseball, National Hockey League, the National Football League, Major League Soccer, the Professional Referee Organization, and the National Basketball Association,.

In addition, Josh has extensive experience representing clients in the performing arts industry, including the New York City Ballet, New York City Opera, Big Apple Circus, among many others, in collective bargaining negotiations with performers and musicians, the administration of their collective bargaining agreements, and in grievance arbitrations.

Josh also represents a diverse range of clients, including real estate developers and contractors, pipe line contractors, hospitals, hotels, manufacturers and public employers, in collective bargaining, counseling on general employment matters and proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board, New York State Public Employment Relations Board and arbitrators.

Josh has also recently served as an adjunct professor at Cornell University’s School of Industrial Labor Relations for the past two years, teaching a course regarding Major League Baseball salary arbitration.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Josh worked for a year and a half at the National Hockey League, where he was involved in all labor and employment matters, including preparations for collective bargaining, grievance arbitration, contract drafting and reviewing and employment counseling. Josh also interned in the labor relations department of Major League Baseball and at Region 2 of the National Labor Relations Board. He was a member of the Brooklyn Law Review and the Appellate Moot Court Honor Society and served as president of the Brooklyn Entertainment and Sports Law Society.

Photo of Melissa C. Felcher Melissa C. Felcher

Melissa Felcher is an associate in the Labor and Employment Law Department and a member of the Labor Management Relations Practice Group and the Counseling, Training and Pay Equity Practice Group.

Melissa earned her J.D. at Brooklyn Law School, where she served as…

Melissa Felcher is an associate in the Labor and Employment Law Department and a member of the Labor Management Relations Practice Group and the Counseling, Training and Pay Equity Practice Group.

Melissa earned her J.D. at Brooklyn Law School, where she served as an Executive Notes Editor of the Brooklyn Law Review. While at Brooklyn Law School, she interned for the Honorable Gregory H. Woods of the Southern District of New York.

Photo of Raymond Arroyo Raymond Arroyo

Raymond Arroyo is an associate in the Labor Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group.

During his time at Proskauer, Raymond has focused on a wide range of employment matters, including employment discrimination litigation, labor/management relations, and policies, handbooks…

Raymond Arroyo is an associate in the Labor Department and a member of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group.

During his time at Proskauer, Raymond has focused on a wide range of employment matters, including employment discrimination litigation, labor/management relations, and policies, handbooks and training, among others. Raymond has gained experience across a wide variety of industries including financial services, educational institutions, and sports.

Raymond earned his J.D. from Columbia Law School. While at Columbia, Raymond worked at the Center for Public Research and Leadership as a graduate assistant, providing consulting and strategic advice to educational institutions and organizations.  Raymond was also a staff editor for the Columbia Journal of Race and Law.

Prior to his legal career, Raymond was a Teach for America corps member and taught middle school in New York City.