loader
Page is loading...
generic_insight_detail

Obama NLRB Deep Sixes Employer Defense on Procedural Grounds


A recent NLRB decision demonstrates again the Obama NLRB’s willingness to entertain inconsistency when the outcome favors a union. Over the last eight years, some have noted that this has been a persistent theme at the NLRB. The most recent example of this phenomenon is found in the NLRB’s Jan. 9 Williams-Sonoma Direct, Inc., decision. In this union election case involving the NLRB’s controversial Specialty Healthcare “micro unit” decision, the issue was the appropriateness of the union’s petitioned-for unit of merchandise processors. Under the procedural requirements of the NLRB’s new election rules effective since April 14, 2015, a party challenging the appropriateness of a petitioned-for unit procedurally must raise its defenses in its statement of position, which must be timely served on the NLRB and the other party. If the statement of position is not timely served, the party required to file the statement of position waives its defenses. On the basis that a statement of position was not filed timely, the NLRB majority held that under Section 102.66(d) of its new election rule the employer was precluded from litigating the unit composition issue. While NLRB member Philip Miscimarra agreed, he also took the time to point out how the NLRB has ruled differently when a similar issue confronted a union. Miscimarra’s dissent highlights what many believe has been a disturbing trend over the last eight years, a tendency to treat issues differently when a union’s right is involved. Miscimarra noted for example that in another recent case, Brunswick Bowling Products, LLC, 364 NLRB No. 96, Slip Op. at 3 (2016), the NLRB held that a decertification petition (a petition filed by employees to vote out a union) could not be pursued notwithstanding the fact that the union in that case did not timely file its position statement raising a “contract bar” defense. Rather, the NLRB refused to find a waiver of the union’s defense. Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce and member Lauren McFerran sidestepped this “inconsistency” critique and sweeping away the alleged discrepancy by noting “peculiar circumstances” that they say justified the ruling in favor of allowing the union to present a tardy defense. It is these types of flip-flopping rationales many hope will become a thing of the past with a Trump NLRB. However, there is also quite a bit of uncertainty about what positions a Trump NLRB will tackle given that he also received significant support from union households.


RELATED ARTICLES

NLRB Continues to Turn Back the Clock, Restoring Pre-Obama Disciplinary Rule

June 24, 2020 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board, Unions and Union Membership

Unnecessary Roughness: NLRB Calls Foul on Union for Workplace Investigation Interference

June 17, 2020 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board, Unions and Union Membership

Shhh! NLRB Says Companies Can Block Union Talk on the Clock

June 9, 2020 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board

Full Steam Ahead, At Least In Part, for Union Election Rule Changes

June 3, 2020 | Labor Relations, National Labor Relations Board, Unions and Union Membership

Subscribe

Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.

View Subscription Center
RELATED TOPICS
labor and employment law issues
NLRB
Trump Administration
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.