Reasoning Behind “Ambush Elections” Rule is Groundless

By April 11, 2012Labor Unions

In a blog post earlier this week, I wrote about the “cumulative effects” memo and National Labor Relations Board Chairman Mark Pearce’s comment about “keeping our eye on the prize.” One of the regulations recently issued by the NLRB would speed up the process for representation elections – we call it the “Ambush Elections” regulation.

The Ambush Elections rule was finalized late last year and is set to take effect on April 30. Apparently, the Board believes the regulation is necessary because an epidemic of employers stalling union elections by abusing their legal rights has broken out across the country. This, however, flies in the face of the Board’s own data.

Every year, the NLRB General Counsel is to publish a “Summary of Operations” report outlining the work of the Board over the previous fiscal year. This year’s report sheds light on the speciousness of the argument for hurriedly making the most significant changes to representation election procedure in 75 years. The report shows the median time for an election to be held is 38 days – the same it has been for three years and well below the Board’s own target of 42 days. In fact, the median time for elections has exceeded the 42-day goal for the last 11 years.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at another reason the Board’s argument for the Ambush Elections regulation is bogus.

Leave a Reply