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

Press Release
Sep 18, 2026
Paris Glazer Named to Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s 2026 40 Attorneys Under Forty

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 17, 2026
Federal and State Regulators Continue Crackdown on Junk Fees

Press Release
Sep 17, 2026
Defense Verdict Reduces $134 Million Demand to $2 Million in Catastrophic Motorcycle Injury Case

Insights for Insurers Alert
Sep 16, 2026
America 250: The Nation’s Unique Contributions to Insurance Coverage Law and Litigation

In The News
Sep 15, 2026
Lucy Wang Discusses the California Insurance Commissioner’s Role in Protecting Consumers

Press Release
Sep 10, 2026
Hinshaw Attorneys Recognized as 2027 Lexology Index Thought Leaders: USA

In The News
Sep 10, 2026
Nicholas Ajello and Gregory Emry Analyze FAA’s Proposed BVLOS Drone Regulations

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 9, 2026
“Play Now, Arbitrate Later”—“Not So Fast,” Ninth Circuit Says

In The News
Sep 9, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Discusses “Patchwork” of Laws Targeting Personalized Pricing

Employment Law Observer
Sep 8, 2026
Five Workplace Issues Every Employer Should Address Before They Become a Costly Lawsuit

Press Release
Sep 8, 2026
Jim Sandy Appointed Chair of ABA Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Subcommittee

