On July 26, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) issued a final rule (the “2024 Rule”), codified at 29 C.F.R. 103.20–22, rescinding an earlier rule the Board issued in April 2020 (the “2020 Rule”) that amended representation election procedures.  

As we previously reported, the Board issued its Proposed Rule on this topic in November 2022, and then received a number of comments during the comment period that ended on February 2, 2023.  The 2024 Rule marks a return to the blocking-charge policy and immediate voluntary-recognition bar in place before the 2020 Rule, and eliminates a rule that unions in the construction industry must show affirmative evidence of majority support to convert from an 8(f) to 9(a) relationship.  The effective date of the 2024 Rule is September 30, 2024, and the 2024 Rule will only be applied to cases filed after the effective date.

Implications of the 2024 Rule

Blocking Charge:  When effective on September 30, 2024, Regional Directors will again have the authority to delay an election indefinitely when a party to a representation proceeding requests that its unfair labor practice (“ULP”) charge block an election, as they had the authority to do prior to the 2020 Rule.  In practice, this policy often allows an incumbent union to use a ULP charge to delay a decertification election.

Voluntary Recognition Bar:  The 2024 Rule is a return to voluntary-recognition bar law and jurisprudence as it existed under Lamons Gasket, Co., 357 NLRB 739 (2011).  In Lamons Gasket, the Board overruled Dana Corp., 351 NLRB 434 (2007), and established that an employer’s voluntary recognition of a union immediately barred the filing of an election petition for between 6 months to one year after the parties’ first bargaining session.  The 2020 Rule reinstated Dana Corp. challenges to voluntary recognition, under which employees receive 45 days to petition for a Board-conducted, secret-ballot election after their employer gives notice of voluntarily recognizing a union under National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) Section 9(a).

Construction Industry:  Finally, the 2024 Rule entirely eliminates 29 C.F.R. § 103.22, and returns to the Board’s application of the voluntary-recognition and contract bars in the construction industry per Staunton Fuel & Material, 335 NLRB 717 (2001) and Casale Industries, 311 NLRB 951 (1993). In the construction industry, NLRA Section 8(f) allows employers and unions to form a collective bargaining relationship through what are often called “pre-hire” agreements, even absent the support of a majority of employees.  This means that employers in 8(f) relationships could withdraw recognition from the union after expiration of the collective-bargaining agreement.  Under typical Section 9(a) bargaining relationships, employers and unions remain obligated to continue negotiating after expiration of a CBA. 

Under prior case law, a union could convert a Section 8(f) agreement with a construction industry employer to a Section 9(a) agreement through contract language alone—i.e., by evidencing in the contract that parties intended the relationship to be a permanent one.  Prior to the  2020 Rule, many construction-industry unions insisted on including this language to maintain their foothold in the relationship. 

Kaplan’s Dissent

Board Member Kaplan issued a dissent critiquing the 2024 Rule, stating that the 2020 Rule made “well-advised changes” to the NLRA, and that the 2024 Rule is “unnecessary and counterproductive.”  He also noted that “in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S.Ct. 2244 (2024), it is an open question to what extent reviewing courts must afford deference to [the majority’s] decision to repeal the 2020 Rule and promulgate a new rule in its place.”

It remains to be seen whether litigation is initiated to block implementation of the final rule, as we have recently seen (see here).  As always, we will keep you updated on any further developments.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
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.