New Member Promotion >>> Save $15 and get a SHRM tote!
Giving applicants with criminal backgrounds a fair chance at employment can be good for business.
Plus all the HR resources you need to be more efficient and effective this fall!
Apply for the SHRM Certification Exam and begin advancing your career.
Learn how to make the business case for diversity, October 25-27.
SHRM Files Legal Challenge to NLRB 'Ambush' Election Rule
Today, SHRM filed a lawsuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or “Board”) rulemaking changing union representation election procedures. SHRM’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asks the court to deem the rule unlawful and set it aside because it violates the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as the First and Fifth amendments of the Constitution of the United States. In this suit, SHRM is joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Retail Federation.
The representation election rule is also known as the “ambush” election rule because of its focus on speeding up the union election process at the expense of employees and employers who will have insufficient time to understand and address the relevant issues about the impact unionization will have on both parties. SHRM has long supported the fundamental right, guaranteed by the NLRA, of every employee to make an informed, private choice about whether or not to join a union. By allowing an election to be held in as little as 14 days after the employer is first notified of an election petition and severely limiting an employer’s ability to challenge aspects of the process prior to the election, the ambush rule promotes speed of elections over all other goals and requirements of the NLRA including free speech rights and the opportunity for a full and informed debate before an election is held.
In addition, the NLRB has failed to answer the most fundamental question of rulemaking: why the rule is necessary? Currently the Board handles election requests quickly with over 95 percent of elections occurring in less than two months. In addition, over 90 percent of elections generate no pre-election litigation, surpassing the Board’s own stated goal of 85 percent.
SHRM is particularly concerned about the rule’s mandate that employers provide their employees’ personal phone numbers and email addresses to labor organizations. Although the Board acknowledges that this provision raises privacy, identity theft and other risks, they conclude that these “risks are worth taking.” SHRM members tasked with protecting employee privacy and personal information have expressed grave concern throughout the rulemaking process about providing this information to organized labor.
In addition to SHRM’s comments opposing these changes at the proposed rule stage, the boards of 96 SHRM state councils and chapters lent their names in support of SHRM’s comments and over 4,600 individual SHRM members submitted comments cautioning the NLRB about the impact this proposal would have on fair union elections. In issuing its final rule, the Board did not make substantial changes based on concerns identified by SHRM and other stakeholders. As a result, this litigation represents the final opportunity to attempt to prevent the rule from going into effect and is only the third time that SHRM has challenged a federal regulation in court.
Read SHRM’s complaint here.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
CA Resources at Your Fingertips
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies