formal comments to the Board's proposed rule. - SEIU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

With these changes, it would no longer be necessary for the Casehandling Manual to provide that the union automatically receive time to use the post-direction or post-agreement voter eligibility list because the union would have access to the relevant information earlier in the process. Given the current practice of requiring ten days following receipt of the list before scheduling the election, the regulations should state explicitly that the Regional Director shall not impose any minimum time period during which the non-employer parties must have the list in their possession. Where, however, the postdirection or post-agreement list includes employees besides those listed on the preliminary list, any non- employer party, upon its prompt request after receiving the list, should be able to obtain a postponement of the election to a date no later than 10 days after the party’s receipt of the list in order to have time to talk to the newly included employees. 8. Waiver of the Requirement That an Election Not Be Held Until 10- days After Provision of the Excelsior List While no specific language to this effect is contained in the proposed rules, the NPRM at 36826 indicates that the Board would permit the waiver by parties whose name appears on the ballot, of the existing practice, reflected in Model Interiors, Inc. requirement that an election not be scheduled for a date less than 10-days after provisions of the voter 88 and Casehandling Manual § 11302.1, of the list. We believe that allowance of such a waiver can facilitate the holding of timely elections so long as it is clear that a party may never waive provision of the list itself. It would be beneficial to clarify that Rule 102.62(d) only permits the parties in an election agreement to agree to a different timeframe for provision of the list, and does not permit the waiver of the list itself or any of its contents. This is consistent with Section 11312.1 of the Casehandling Manual which provides the “[t]he Board will not permit waivers of the Excelsior rule with respect to furnishing either names or addresses.” However, in general, rather than a waiver, we would prefer the provisions described in section 7, above, in which the employer would provide a preliminary list within two days of the petition’s filing, and post-direction or post-agreement a non-employer party could obtain additional time to communicate with employees newly identified on the final list. 9. Time Period for Posting Final Notice to Employees of Elections Proposed Rule 102.67(i) provides for a reduction from 3 days to 2 days in the minimum posting period for the Final Notice to Employees of Elections. We believe that this adjustment is reasonable and will work no prejudice to any employee or to the parties, particularly in light of the Rule’s requirement 324 NLRB 164 (1997).
that employers who customarily communicate with their employees electronically must distribute the notice electronically. 10. Elimination of the Pre-Election Request for Review The elimination of the pre-election request for review contained at proposed rule 102.67 is another sensible reform that eliminates a significant area of delay in scheduling the election. Under the current system, elections are delayed for 25-30 days following the Regional Director’s decision in order to allow the Board to rule on any request for review that may be filed. 89 Since these requests are rarely made and even more rarely granted, the proposed rule strikes the appropriate balance of the parties’ interests by eliminating the pre-election request for review but allowing the parties to appeal any pre election issues post-election. 11. Election Objections and Offer of Proof Because we believe that the timely final certification of the results of an election is fundamental to the establishment of workplace stability, we support the consolidation in proposed Rule 102.69(a) of the timeline for filing objections to an election or conduct affecting the outcome of an election with an offer of proof describing the objecting party’s evidence, rather than permitting an additional seven days, and any subsequent extension, in order to produce a description of the evidence. In doing so, we note that this move toward timelier certification puts a greater burden on a union than it does upon an employer because an employer is in control of the worksite and has more tools and resources with which to gather evidence. Nevertheless, this move toward timelier certification puts no excessive burden upon unions or employers. 12. Hearing on Objections and/or Challenges We fully support the timeline provided on proposed Rule 102.69(d) that any hearing held regarding objections to an election take place within 14 days of the tally of ballots or as soon thereafter as is practicable. Again, we emphasize that it is not only the election, but the timely certification of the results and election that is necessary for the promotion of labor relations stability. D. The Proposed Regulations Should Not be Applied to Decertification Elections We disagree with the proposal to make the expedited timeframes applicable to decertification elections. Under the current NLRB procedures, aside from the periods of time covered by the contract 29 C.F.R. 101.21(d) 23
Page 1 and 2: I Stronger Together MARY KAY HENRY
Page 3 and 4: • one-on-one meetings with worker
Page 5 and 6: anti-union messages to subordinates
Page 7 and 8: C. Long delays and ineffective reme
Page 9 and 10: esidents and their families. Manage
Page 11 and 12: appropriate if there were a hearing
Page 13 and 14: The opposition has focused on those
Page 15 and 16: III. The Board’s Proposed Timelin
Page 17 and 18: and committed additional ULPs inclu
Page 19 and 20: incorporates this requirement and m
Page 21: We believe that the ability of the
Page 25 and 26: The requirement for prompt and comp
Page 27 and 28: they should be provided to the unio
Page 29 and 30: home address and the phone number i
Page 31 and 32: V. The Existing Blocking Charge Doc
Page 33 and 34: employee rights. described by one A
Page 35 and 36: F. The blocking charge policy shoul

formal comments to the Board's proposed rule. - SEIU

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?