California Labor &
Employment Law Blog
Jan 23, 2015

Two Lawsuits Now Pending In Attempt to Invalidate NLRB Quickie Election Rules

Topics: Union-Management Relations

On December 12, the NLRB adopted its final rule amending its representation election procedures to provide for shortened election periods (aka “quickie elections”) and other changes to the election process.  These changes will make it more difficult for employers to effectively campaign and challenge the election process before the voting takes place.  A summary of these changes is available at the NLRB website.  In addition, our December 18 blog entry about these new rules can be accessed by clicking here.

In the last few weeks, two separate lawsuits have been filed challenging the quickie election rules.  On January 5, the United States Chamber of Commerce, SHRM and several other employer groups filed a complaint in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia claiming that the NLRB exceeded its constitutional authority and violated the Administrative Procedures Act in enacting these quickie election rules.  The lawsuit seeks an injunction invalidating the new election rules. 

The following week, on January 13, the National Federation of Independent Businesses and Associated Builders and Contractors filed a second lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas.  This second lawsuit did not allege a constitutional violation but instead is seeking an injunction that declares the quickie election rules as being invalid because (a) they conflict with the Administrative Procedures Act (b) they conflict with the statutory language of Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, which requires that the NLRB “assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by [the] Act” and (c) they violate the privacy rights of employees by requiring personal information such as phone numbers and email addresses to be turned over to the union. 

At this stage, it is very difficult to predict how these lawsuits will be resolved.  Recently, the NLRB has had tremendous difficulty in the federal courts.  Many of their recent rules and practices have been invalidated by the courts, including their attempt to require employers to post a poster about section 7 rights and their attempts to invalidate class action waiver provisions in mandatory arbitration agreements.  However, in passing the modified election procedure rules, the NLRB was aware that a court challenge was inevitable and therefore acted very carefully and narrowly. 


Given that the new rules go into effect in April, we expect that most unions will move slowly with their current organizing drives during the first quarter of 2015 and then really kick into gear once the quickie election rules are effective in mid-April. 


We will continue to keep you informed on how these lawsuits (and any others that are filed) are progressing.

About CDF

For over 25 years, CDF has distinguished itself as one of the top employment, labor and immigration firms in California, representing employers in single-plaintiff and class action lawsuits and advising employers on related legal compliance and risk avoidance. We cover the state, with five locations from Sacramento to San Diego.

> visit primary site

About the Editor in Chief

Sacramento Office Managing Partner and Chair of CDF’s Traditional Labor Law Practice Group. Mark has been practicing labor and employment law in California for thirty years. His practice has a special emphasis on the representation of California employers in union-management relations and handling federal and state court litigation and administrative matters triggered by all types of employment-related disputes. He is also adept at providing creative and practical legal advice to help minimize the risks inherent in employing workers in California. He recently named “Sacramento Lawyer of the Year” in Employment Law-Management for 2021 by Best Lawyers®.
> Full Bio   > Email   Call 916.361.0991

CDF Labor Law LLP © 2024

Editorial Board About CDF What We Do Contact Us Attorney Advertising Disclaimer Privacy Policy Cookie Policy