NLRB Schedules SNAP Election Vote
In a shocking decision, the NLRB has scheduled for Nov. 30 a vote on a modified version of the proposal to shorten union election periods.
As Siegel O’Connor previously noted, current Board member Craig Becker’s term is due to expire at the end of the year, leaving the ordinarily five-member Board with just two members. The Supreme Court recently held that the NLRB must have a “quorum of three members” in order to fully exercise its powers. Therefore, in order to secure passage of this controversial SNAP election regulation, the two Democratic members of the Board have decided to rush forward with a vote next week.
And not only are the two Democratic members of the Board rushing this vote but, as Tina Korbe at Hot Air documents, they’ve excluded the sole Republican member of the Board, Brian Hayes, from the revision process. Specifically:
- Hayes has not been informed of how the rest of the Board plans to address the responses received during the proposed rulemaking comment period last summer;
- Hayes has not been informed of what portions of the proposed rule will be excluded, included, or modified in the final version; and
- Hayes was offered a “take-it-or-leave-it proposal last Tuesday, and he was given three days—3 days—to respond. Potentially dissenting members are traditionally given 90 days to act on a proposed draft.
In response to this treatment, Hayes has sent a letter to Members of Congress. Unfortunately, given the current political make-up of Washington, any remedial actions taken by the House will likely be defeated in the Senate.
Bottom Line for Employers
Can anyone stop the Board from imposing SNAP elections on employers across America? Board Member Hayes still has one card left to play: He can resign immediately, leaving the Board with only two members, and stripping it of rulemaking power. Such a move would be drastic, to be sure. But with employers still struggling to survive in a tough economy, this country simply cannot afford SNAP elections.