Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Labor Board Asks: Retain, Modify, or Rescind ‘Quickie Election’ Rules?

By Ian B. Bogaty, Howard M. Bloom, Jonathan J. Spitz & Philip B. Rosen on December 12, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

A Request for Information regarding the “Quickie Election” representation regulations (at 29 CFR parts 101 and 102) will be published on December 13, 2017, the National Labor Relations Board has announced. The RFI will seek input on the 2014 amendments to representation case procedures that reduced the opportunities for employers to communicate with their employees about union issues between the filing of a representation petition and the NLRB-conducted election.

The amendments, which took effect on April 14, 2015, allowed union organizing to move at an accelerated pace by, among other things, significantly reducing the time between the filing of a representation petition and the election from an average of approximately six weeks to an average of 23 days. Other provisions create substantial burdens on employers by requiring, within seven days, the submission of an onerous Statement of Position addressing all potential bargaining unit issues, the provision of copious amounts of information regarding potential voters, and deferring critical election issues, such as supervisory status issues, until after the election is held.

While the Board’s stated purpose in adopting the 2014 rules was to simplify representation-case procedures, the rules placed substantial pressure on employers to make critical decisions and produce important documentation within tight deadlines. By compressing the time period between the filing of the petition and the election, the rules also eliminated much of an employer’s ability to communicate with its employees about unionization issues.

From December 13, 2017, through February 12, 2018, the NLRB will allow interested parties to respond to three questions about the current rule:

(1) Should the 2014 Election Rule be retained without change?

(2) Should the 2014 Election Rule be retained with modifications? If so, what should be modified?

(3) Should the 2014 Election Rule be rescinded? If so, should the Board revert to the Representation Election Regulations that were in effect prior to the 2014 Election Rule’s adoption, or should the Board make changes to the prior Representation Election Regulations? If the Board should make changes to the prior Representation Election Regulations, what should be changed?

Before April 14, 2015, elections traditionally were conducted approximately six weeks after the filing of a representation petition. A return to this longer period would afford employers a much more reasonable amount of time to communicate with their employees about unionization. In addition, employers would be able to focus on providing critical information to employees about their rights and the advantages and disadvantages of unionization.

It remains to be seen what action, if any, the Board will take after reviewing the answers it receives. Nevertheless, its RFI should be cause for optimism among employers.

Action Items for Employers

Jackson Lewis, a nationwide management labor law firm whose attorneys have represented employers in thousands of NLRB representation case matters, is analyzing the rules to make recommendations to employers or employer groups about the best courses of action. Employers and employer groups who wish to comment will have a full opportunity to do so, either singly or in conjunction with labor counsel experienced in representing employers in representation cases.

If you or an industry group of which you are part desire further information or guidance or representation in submitting comments, please contact Philip Rosen, Jon Spitz, Thomas Walsh, Howard Bloom or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

Photo of Ian B. Bogaty Ian B. Bogaty
Read more about Ian B. BogatyEmail
Photo of Howard M. Bloom Howard M. Bloom
Read more about Howard M. BloomEmail
Photo of Jonathan J. Spitz Jonathan J. Spitz

Jonathan J. Spitz is a principal in the Atlanta, Georgia, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and co-leader of the firm’s Labor Relations practice group.

Read more about Jonathan J. SpitzEmail
Photo of Philip B. Rosen Philip B. Rosen

Philip B. Rosen is a Principal in the New York City office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a member of the Firm’s Management Committee. Mr. Rosen also leads the firm’s Labor Practice Group. He joined the Firm in 1979 and served as Managing…

Philip B. Rosen is a Principal in the New York City office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and a member of the Firm’s Management Committee. Mr. Rosen also leads the firm’s Labor Practice Group. He joined the Firm in 1979 and served as Managing Partner of the New York City office from 1989 to 2009.

Mr. Rosen lectures extensively, conducts management training, and advises clients with respect to legislative and regulatory initiatives, corporate strategies, business ethics, social media, reorganizations and reductions-in-force, purchase/sale transactions, sexual harassment and other workplace conduct rules, compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, wrongful discharge and other workplace litigation, corporate campaigns and union organizing matters, collective bargaining, arbitration and National Labor Relations Board proceedings. He has been quoted by the press on many labor matters, including the National Labor Relations Board’s recent initiatives on protected concerted activity and the proposed Notice Posting requirements.

Read more about Philip B. RosenEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Labor & Collective Bargaining
  • Organization:
    Jackson Lewis P.C.

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo