Search form

NLRB "Quickie Election" Rule Invalid for Lack of Board Quorum, Federal Court Rules

By Roger S. Kaplan, Philip B. Rosen and Thomas V. Walsh
  • May 15, 2012

The National Labor Relations Board “quickie election” rule that went into effect on April 30, 2012, is invalid because only two members of the Board, instead of the three needed to make up a Board quorum, participated in the final vote to pass it, a federal district court has ruled.  Chamber of Commerce v. NLRB, No. 11-2262 (D. D.C. May 14, 2012).  The rule, which the Board rushed to finalize at the end of 2011 (before losing one of its then-three remaining members), eliminates certain pre-election rights of employees and employers, shortening the time before a representation election takes place.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S. Ct. 2635 (2010), that a three-member quorum of the Board “must participate for the valid transaction of business.”  Moreover, the Supreme Court cautioned, a member may not be counted toward a quorum simply because he or she holds office. 

The District Court determined that when the election rule actually was adopted on December 16, 2011, only two members (Chairman Mark G. Pearce and former Member Craig Becker) participated, voting electronically through the agency’s Judicial Case Management System to adopt the rule.  District Court Judge James E. Boasberg found that one member (Member Brian Hayes) did not respond to the Board’s electronic invitation.  Hayes explained in an affidavit that he thought nothing further was required of him; he had already signaled at an earlier meeting his disagreement with the rulemaking and his intention to issue a dissenting opinion to the final rule at a later date.  Therefore, “his failure to be present or participate [in the final electronic vote] means that only two members voted…,” Judge Boasberg explained, which did not satisfy the quorum requirement “for the valid transaction of business.”

Judge Boasberg emphasized that his decision does not “necessarily spell the end of the final rule for all time.”  Even though he did not reach the “other procedural and substantive challenges to the rule,” he continued, “it may well be that, had a quorum participated in its promulgation, the final rule would have been found perfectly lawful.”

The Board has not yet commented on the court’s decision, but the agency is likely to comply pending any appeal.  As Judge Boasberg suggested, however, the Board can re-issue the rule by voting on it now.  In all likelihood, a new vote on the rule will not end the controversy.  Renewed legal challenges almost certainly will follow such a re-issuance.

We will keep you apprised of further developments on the election rule.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you work.

©2012 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

May 24, 2016

Labor Board Will Decide Organizing Rights of Non-Teaching Employees at Religious Colleges, Universities

May 24, 2016

The National Labor Relations Board is set to decide if the same test used to determine whether teaching employees of a religious school are subject to the Board’s jurisdiction should be extended to non-teaching employees. Islamic Saudi Academy, Case 05-RC-080474 (May 12, 2016). The Board in Pacific Lutheran University, 361 NLRB... Read More

May 5, 2016

New Georgia Law Says Franchisors Generally Not Employers of Franchisees or Franchisees’ Workers

May 5, 2016

The “Protecting Georgia Small Businesses Act” amends Georgia’s Labor and Industrial Relations Code to provide that neither a franchisee nor a franchisee’s employee is considered an employee of a franchisor for “any purpose.” However, the amendment does not apply to the Georgia Workers’... Read More

April 22, 2016

Labor Department: Changes to Interpretation of Advice Exemption Apply Only to Agreements, Arrangements Entered Into After July 1

April 22, 2016

The United States Department of Labor published its final rule relating to “persuader” activity under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act on March 24, 2016. Under the DOL’s new interpretation, employers/clients as well as consultants/attorneys would be required to report to the DOL all arrangements in... Read More

Related Practices