Recently, the NLRB General Counsel issued a memorandum to Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge, and Resident Officers recommending an alternative theory to plead and argue when challenging an employer’s withdrawal of recognition.
Under current precedent, an employer may unilaterally withdraw recognition of an incumbent union if it has objective evidence that the union has actually lost majority support. See Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pacific, 333 NLRB 717, 717 (2001). The GC now proposes a new framework that was rejected in Levitz: requiring election results to prove the union’s loss of majority support. In proposing this previously rejected framework, the GC points out that in Levitz, the Board left open the possibility of revisiting this issue.
To effectuate this new approach, the GC urges Regions to plead an alternative theory of violation: “that the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) by unilaterally withdrawing recognition absent the results of a Board election.” Memorandum GC 16-03.
The GC claims this change will benefit employers, employees and unions. The GC notes the existing “peril for employers” to determine whether a union has actually lost majority support, which can result in “years of litigation over difficult evidentiary issues.” Memorandum GC 16-03.
What does this mean for employers? The proposed change would preclude an employer from unilaterally withdrawing recognition without an employee petitioning for, and the employees voting in favor of decertification or an employer filing an RM petition. On one hand, a bright-line test that definitively establishes an employer’s right to unilaterally withdraw recognition may be a welcome change. The problem with this proposal, however, is that a union can simply file unfair labor practice charges to block any election. This proposal likely would mean one thing – an employer would have no ability to oust a union even if the majority of the employees no longer wish to be represented by it.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.