Abstract
The National Labor Relations Board¿s (NLRB) new election procedures represent a comprehensive reform of its representation process. As is the case for many broad reforms, the new rules have prompted significant criticisms and accolades. Many employers have decried the new rules as implementing an unfair ¿ambush¿ election process that will deprive employees of needed information and employers of their right to express their views about unionization. In contrast, unions have largely applauded the new rules as an improvement on an election system that they view as stacked against them. The truth appears far less monumental. Although the NLRB¿s new rules provide a much-needed update to election procedures and aim to decrease many sources of unwarranted delay, they seem incapable of causing a significant impact on employees, employers, or unions. The new rules should result in a quicker election process, but not so quick that they can be fairly described as ¿ambush¿ or a deprivation of employers¿ ability to communicate with employees. Moreover, the modestly shorter time periods for elections are unlikely to improve unions¿ election win rates or increase union density in a significant way. In short, the NLRB has implemented a modest set of improvements to its representation process, and critics and proponents should not exaggerate the limited impact of those reforms.
Recommended Citation
Jeffrey M. Hirsch,
NLRB Elections: Ambush or Anticlimax?,
64
Emory L. J.
1647
(2015).
Available at:
https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol64/iss0/10