Federal Judge Strikes Down NLRB “Speedy Election” Rule on Technicality
2 min read
May 16, 2012
A federal district court in Washington D.C. has struck down the recently enacted National Labor Relations Board rule that expedited union representation elections. The rule, which had been in effect since April 30, sped up union elections from an average of 38 days after a petition is filed to as few as 10 days. In a May 14 decision in the case of Chamber of Commerce v. National Labor Relations Board, however, District Court Judge James Boasberg found that the Board was acting without a quorum when two of its members enacted the rule in December 2011. As a result, Judge Boasberg determined, the so-called "speedy election" rule is invalid.
Judge Boasberg's decision is particularly noteworthy in that it does not actually relate to the substance of the rule. Rather, his decision is based on a technicality: only two of the three members currently sitting on what is supposed to be a five-member Board actually voted to approve the rule. "According to Woody Allen, 80 percent of life is just showing up. When it comes to satisfying a quorum requirement, though, showing up is even more important than that. Indeed, it is the only thing that matters," the Judge wrote. "Two members of the Board participated in the decision to adopt the final rule," he stated, "and two is simply not enough." Because his decision did not invalidate the substance of the rule, however, the Judge suggested that the Board could quickly reinstate it: "[N]othing appears to prevent a properly constituted quorum of the Board from voting to adopt the rule if it has the desire to do so. In the meantime, though, representation elections will have to continue under the old procedures."
Following the judge's decision, the NLRB issued a press release affirming that it has "temporarily suspended the implementation of changes to its representation case process." Further, the NLRB stated, parties involved in the approximately 150 cases that were processed under the rule between April 30 and May 14 will be "contacted and given the opportunity to continue processing the case from its current posture rather than re-initiating the case under the prior procedure."
Thus, for the time being at least, unions will not be able to engage in type of the "ambush" elections that are made possible by the Board's new rule. Hinshaw & Culbertson will keep tabs on this situation, and will update this blog with any important developments.
Featured Insights

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

Press Release
Jul 15, 2026
Two Hinshaw Partners Recognized in Minnesota Monthly's 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota

Event
July 13-15, 2026
Hinshaw Proudly Sponsors 2026 Lavender Law Conference and Career Fair

Webinar
Jul 14, 2026
Scott Seaman Presents on Horizontal vs. Vertical Exhaustion of Insurance

Healthcare Alert
Jul 8, 2026
A New Era of Compliance Standards for California DSOs and MSOs After the Aspen Dental Settlement

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 7, 2026
What Insurers Need to Know About California’s FAIR Plan Assessment Recoupment Guidance

In The News
Jul 6, 2026
Francesco Palanda’s Practical Guide for Mitigating AI-Related Business Interruption Risk

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Jun 29, 2026
Beyond Malpractice: The Rising Threat of Privacy and Statutory Claims Against Lawyers



