On Monday, when the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia smacked down the Obama NLRB’s new “ambush” election procedures, the court made clear that the union-controlled labor board overstepped its bounds by imposing its new rules without a proper quorum (as required under a U.S. Supreme Court case).
That, however, has not deterred the NLRB’s chairman (and union attorney) Mark Pearce from vowing to find a way to re-impose the ambush election procedure on America’s union-free workplaces.
According to a press release issued Tuesday, the NLRB chief stated:
“We continue to believe that the amendments represent a significant improvement in our process and serve the public interest by eliminating unnecessary litigation,” he said. “We are determined to move forward.” [Emphasis added.]
As the NLRB’s ambush elections were established without a proper quorum, the NLRB may end up simply re-voting on the issue using a quorum comprised of President Obama’s constitutionally-questionable recess appointments.
That re-vote could happen within a week or two, according to industrial relations professor Gary Chaison.
According to the NLRB’s press release, in the two weeks that the Board’s ambush election procedures were in place, there were “about” 150 election petitions filed.
Given that there were 1595 elections in all of 2011, the 150 election petitions filed over the two-week period indicate that unions are relying on ambush elections in order to target more unsuspecting employers, and it’s easy to see why:
Unions win 87 percent of elections held 15 days or less after a request, a rate that falls to 58 percent when the vote takes place after 36 to 40 days, according to a February report by Bloomberg Government. [Emphasis added.]
With the union-appointees in control of the National Labor Relations Board, this week’s victory over the NLRB’s ambush elections may be short-lived.
“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)