NLRB Issues Reversal of Obama-Era Precedent on Settlements and Seeks Comment on Quickie Election Rule

by Littler

As anticipated, the new National Labor Relations Board Republican majority has begun a dramatic shift in labor policy.As the clock ticked down on Chairman Philip Miscimarra’s term, which expired on December 16, 2017, and with uncertainty as to when the Republicans will regain their majority status, employers were hopeful that the Board would overturn some of the most controversial of the Obama-era policies and decisions, consistent with Miscimarra’s dissents in many of those decisions.   

Last week, days before the end of Chairman Miscimarra’s term, the Board issued the first of a number of anticipated decisions as employers had hoped. In University of Pittsburgh Medical CenterUPMC,2 the Board held that Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) may approve partial settlement proposals despite the General Counsel/Region and the charging party’s objections to the agreement, in a return to pre-Obama precedent.  In UPMC, after the ALJ severed the issue of whether UPMC was a single employer from the unfair labor practice allegations filed against one of its hospitals, UPMC moved to dismiss the single employer allegations and, at the same time, offered to guarantee the performance by it hospital  of any ultimate remedial aspects of the ALJ’s decision and order related to the unfair labor practice allegations. The ALJ accepted the offer and granted the partial motion to dismiss, despite objections from both the General Counsel and charging party.  In its decision, the Board expressly overturned the 2016 decision of U.S. Postal Service,3 in which it had held that ALJs could not accept offered settlement terms over an objection by the General Counsel and/or charging party unless the offer was a “full remedy.”  In overturning U.S. Postal Service, the Board returned to the previous precedent of Independent Stave,4 which required the ALJ to weigh and assess multiple factors when deciding whether to accept a proposed partial settlement, including the reasonableness of the proposal. Pursuant to this analysis, UPMC’s offer was held to be reasonable and the single employer claim dismissed.  Practically, this means that the General Counsel and charging parties will no longer be able to veto the partial settlement of a charge and insist on full remedies and complete resolution when the ALJ concludes that the employer’s proposed settlement is reasonable.   

Then, one day after the UPMC decision was issued, the Board issued a News Release announcing that it had had approved a Request for Information to be published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2017, seeking public input on the Board’s 2014 “quickie” election rule, which modified the representation election procedures.5 The Release noted that the Board’s three Republican majority members had approved the Request for Information, while Democrats Mark Gaston Pearce and Lauren McFerran had dissented.

The Request for Information specifically seeks responses to the following questions:

  1. Should the 2014 Election Rule be retained without change?
  2. Should the 2014 Election Rule be retained with modifications? If so, what should be modified?
  3. Should the 2014 Election Rule be rescinded? If so, should the Board revert to the Representation Election Regulations that were in effect prior to the 2014 Election Rule’s adoption, or should the Board make changes to the prior Representation Election Regulations? If the Board should make changes to the prior Representation Election Regulations, what should be changed?

While the quickie election rule generated much controversy and criticism from management-side practitioners who considered the rule a “pro-union” measure, the rule has had a limited impact on the union win rate, likely as a result of employers being better prepared in advance of petition filing.  In total, for fiscal year 2017, which ended September 30, 2017, 1,391 elections were held, resulting in a total union win percentage of 65%.  This is a not a significant change from the pre-quickie election rule statistics of 1,453 elections with a 63% union win percentage in FY 2014, despite the median number of days from petition to election dropping from 38 days in FY 2013 and 2014, to 23 days in FY 2016.6 Still, the quickie election rule has created additional burdens for employers, and many will be encouraged by the Board’s decision to revisit them.  

These changes to Obama-era precedent were anticipated upon President Donald Trump’s election.  However, additional reversals may be curtailed until the spring of 2018, by which time Miscimarra’s replacement will hopefully be confirmed.



1 See Michael J. Lotito et al., With the Election (Mercifully) Behind Us, What Will a Trump Administration Mean for Employers?, Littler Report (Nov. 9, 2016).

2 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017).

3 364 NLRB No. 116 (2017).

4 287 NLRB 740 (1987).

5 See Alan I. Model and Jason J. Silver, The NLRB Issues its Long-Anticipated "Quickie Election" Rule, Making Union Organizing Faster and Easier, Littler Insight (Dec. 15, 2014).

6 General Counsel’s March 2017 Report on the Midwinter Meeting of the American Bar Association, Memorandum GC 1-02. Similarly, the number of days between petition and election in contested cases dropped from 59 days in FY 2013 and 2014 to 35 days in FY 2016. Id.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Littler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Littler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.