NLRB Issues new rules Affecting Elections
1 min read
Dec 1, 2011
On November 30, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided, by a 2-1 vote, to revise several sections of its Rules & Regulations in an attempt to expedite the election process. The NLRB majority stated that their interest was to end what they referred to as unnecessary litigation. A summary of the changes are as follows: (1) hearing officers can limit the evidence introduced at pre-election hearings to the issue of whether an election should be held; (2) hearing officers can limit the filing of briefs; (3) appeals of a hearing officer’s decisions will be heard after the election is conducted; (4) elections will not be delayed pending an appeal; (5) requests for special permission to appeal will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances; and (6) the NLRB would have discretion on which appeals to hear. Although these rules are not as favorable to union organizing efforts as the Employee Free Choice Act or the initially proposed rule changes, non-union employers should be vigilant because unions have recently demonstrated increased organizing activities.
Featured Insights

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 6, 2026
Second Circuit Rules New York Interest-on-Escrow Law is Preempted by National Bank Act

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
May 6, 2026
From Protection to Readiness: What Today’s Cyber Landscape Demands of Organizations

Press Release
Apr 30, 2026
Six-Attorney Team Joins Hinshaw’s Consumer Financial Services Group

In The News
Apr 29, 2026
Lauren Campisi Featured in the 20th Anniversary of Louisiana Super Lawyers Magazine

In The News
Apr 28, 2026
Matt Henderson Provides Media Insights as Conflict of Interest Lawsuits Target Law Firms

In The News
Apr 28, 2026
Akeela White Analyzes US House Hearing on Credit Reporting Compliance Reforms

In The News
Apr 24, 2026
Michael Dowell Reviews New PBM Reform Reshaping Pharmacy Reimbursement

Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Apr 21, 2026
When Does a Client’s Duty to Investigate Begin? Lessons from a Time-Barred Malpractice Case




