Today the National Labor Relations Board convened a two-day public hearing on its proposed “ambush election” rule, noticed earlier this year to demonstrate its supposed commitment to transparency and fair review. This is the recycled rule—previously rejected by a Federal Appeals’ Court—which would shorten the timeframe, to as few as 10-14 days, in which a union election can take place after a petition is filed. The rule would also prohibit certain challenges employers can currently make prior to the election and would also allow the union to receive employees’ private information, such as personal email addresses and home addresses and telephone numbers. It’s patently obvious that this rule is an attempt to stack the deck in favor of the radical agenda we’ve seen out of the NLRB for several years now. While this may be just a “show hearing” for the Board, manufacturers are taking this opportunity to again raise our voice in dissent – because ambush elections are as damaging as they sound.
The NAM will present on two topics tomorrow and stress that by “compressing the timeframe for a representation election, the proposed rules would eviscerate the right of employees to make an informed exercise of their rights, as well as impair the employers’ rights to communicate their position to employees.” The rule would also “chill the free, uninhibited, robust debate regarding the issue of unionization contemplated by Congress enacting the NLRA.” The NAM will also point that requiring employers provide certain confidential information, such as personal email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and work shift information will “provide a wealth of information rendering employees vulnerable to harassment or worse. Providing such information without safeguards exposes both the employee and employer to risk.”
While the idea of having this public hearing on its face would fit the definition of an open and transparent government rulemaking process, the hearing itself is more reminiscent of other public “hearings,” which have been held lately. Hearings where only one side is permitted to ask questions and presenters are limited to a mere five minutes to present one particular aspect of the proposed rule, rather than the rule as a whole. In the end, it is hard to believe this hearing is anything more than checking the transparency box for the Board. The reality is, employers should be preparing for an ambush election – and the Board should prepare for a fight.
Latest posts by Joe Trauger (see all)
- Protecting Intellectual Property and Proprietary Information Key for Manufacturers - January 15, 2016
- Other Countries’ Drug Prices Are Irrelevant - October 29, 2015
- So-Called Drug Transparency Legislation in States Doesn’t Help Patients - October 27, 2015