The two-member Democratic majority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has come under fire for a decision to schedule a Nov. 30 vote on a proposal that could dramatically shorten the length of time between when a petition is filed and a union election takes place. NLRB Member Brian Hayes, ABC and U.S. House of Representatives Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R – Minn.) have publicly criticized the move. 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) June 22 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would overhaul the procedures surrounding a secret ballot election in a union organizing campaign, potentially reducing the amount of time between when a petition is filed and elections take place from approximately 40 days to as few as 10 days. The reduction in time before an election could significantly impede an employer’s ability to educate its employees about the pros and cons of union representation. 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) June 22 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would overhaul the procedures surrounding a secret ballot election in a union organizing campaign, potentially reducing the amount of time between when a petition is filed and elections take place from approximately 40 days to as few as 10 days. The reduction in time before an election could significantly impede an employer’s ability to educate its employees about the pros and cons of union representation. 

ABC April 17 celebrated a victory when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit blocked implementation of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) “employee rights” notice posting rule, which was scheduled to go into effect April 30. Under the rule, employers would have been required to display a poster in their workplace that contained a biased and incomplete list of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act. 

ABC April 17 celebrated a victory when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit blocked implementation of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) “employee rights” notice posting rule, which was scheduled to go into effect April 30. Under the rule, employers would have been required to display a poster in their workplace that contained a biased and incomplete list of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act. 

On March 5, the ABC-led Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) appealed a ruling by a U.S. District Court judge who found that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has the authority to mandate its biased “employee rights” poster.  

On March 5, the ABC-led Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) appealed a ruling by a U.S. District Court judge who found that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has the authority to mandate its biased “employee rights” poster.  

On March 2, a U.S. District Court issued a decision in the legal challenge against the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) biased “employee rights” notice posting requirement, ruling that the NLRB has the authority to mandate the notice posting itself, but it cannot impose an up-front, blanket penalty policy for failure to post.

On March 2, a U.S. District Court issued a decision in the legal challenge against the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) biased “employee rights” notice posting requirement, ruling that the NLRB has the authority to mandate the notice posting itself, but it cannot impose an up-front, blanket penalty policy for failure to post.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Sept. 28 decided that an Ohio contractor violated employee rights by challenging a job targeting program in a state court.