Taking Care of HR Business
        A blog from the attorneys of Verrill

        In Electing to Change 57-Year-Old Precedent, the NLRB Further Shortens the Time Employers Have to Respond to a Union Campaign

        February 3, 2016

        On January 29, 2016 the NLRB issued a decision in which it changed (under the guise of clarifying) one of the election rules for mail-ballot elections. See Guardsmark, LLC and Int’l Union, Security, Police, and Fire Prof’ls of Am., 363 NLRB No. 103 (2016). At issue was at what point in a mail-ballot election the prohibition on holding a mass campaign meeting—commonly known as a “captive-audience meeting”—goes into effect. The rule is clear in manual elections: employers and unions are prohibited from holding a captive-audience meeting within the 24-hour period prior to the election. However, the timing of the prohibition when an election is conducted by mail-ballot has apparently been a source of confusion for the Board.

        In a decision from 1959, the Board held that the captive-audience prohibition in mail-ballot elections begins when the ballots are scheduled to be mailed to members of the petitioned-for unit by the Regional Office. Oregon Washington Telephone Co., 123 NLRB 339 (1959). Despite that bright-line rule, the Board in Guardsmark noted that recent decisions had suggested that the captive-audience prohibition actually goes into effect 24 hours before the ballots are scheduled to be mailed. Such decisions, the Board said, were consistent with the rule in manual elections. Therefore, in order to bring the mail-ballot election rule in line with the manual election rule and to “achieve the clarity, uniformity, and simplicity that a single rule for all elections will provide,” the Board overruled Oregon Washington Telephone and held that the captive-audience prohibition goes into effect 24 hours before ballots are mailed.

        Board Member Miscimarra dissented. He stated that there was no valid reason to change the rule established by Oregon Washington Telephone because the rule in that case was already clear and consistent with the manual election rule. The 24-hour prohibition was enacted by the Board out of a concern that last-minute speeches to mass assemblies of employees on company time have an “unwholesome and unsettling effect” and tend to interfere with employees’ thoughtful choice of how to vote. Thus, the Board held that captive-audience meetings could not take place within 24 hours of a manual election. The rule for mail-ballot elections, which set the start of the prohibition at the time of mailing, was a logical extension of the 24-hour rule, Member Miscimarra wrote, because employees would not receive the ballot for at least 24 hours following mailing. Therefore, the time of mailing rule provided the same, if not greater, protection as the 24-hour rule in manual elections. In changing the rule, the Board all but guaranteed that in mail-ballot elections there will be a 48-hour prohibition on holding captive-audience meetings prior to employees actually receiving the ballot. Member Miscimarra wrote that the Board’s decision “creates a double standard that . . . lacks any rational justification.”

        The practical effect of the change in the captive-audience rule for mail-ballot elections is that it further shortens the time employers have to respond to a union campaign. The new rules for all union elections that went into effect in April 2015 drastically shortened the time that it takes to go from filing the petition to the election. While the rule changes had little effect on unions—as the unions have already garnered significant support prior to filing the petition—the changes work a disadvantage to employers because they have less time to change employees’ minds about unionization. Every day matters in a union campaign, and in changing the captive-audience rule for mail-ballot elections, the Board has essentially taken one of those days away.

        Because the Board’s decision in Guardsmark, coupled with the new union election rules, reduces the amount of time employers have to respond to a union campaign, it is important for employers to be prepared ahead of time for a union campaign. If you have questions about how to prepare for or respond to a union campaign, contact a member of Verrill Dana’s Labor & Employment Group.

        Taking Care of HR Business

        Human resource professionals, supervisors, and company executives are constantly confronted with a changing legal landscape. Verrill’s Taking Care of HR Business blog is designed to keep you informed about the latest and most significant legal developments that affect employers.

        Subscribe

        Looking for more great content? Subscribe for regular legal updates and information delivered right to your inbox.

        Firm Highlights

        Media Mentions

        Robert Keach Quoted in Law360 on SIMAD Summer Camp Bankruptcy Sale

        Verrill attorney Robert Keach was recently quoted in a Law360 article examining the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings involving SIMAD Holdings and...
        Media Mentions

        Chris Tsouros Featured in Law360’s Coverage of Sports Real Estate Deals

        Verrill Partner Chris Tsouros was recently recognized in a Law360 article highlighting law firms involved in significant sports real estate projects...
        Blog

        What Maine’s New Employer Surveillance Law Means for Maine Employers

        Maine employers who monitor their workforce, whether through productivity software, GPS, call recording, or cameras, have a new compliance obligation...
        Blog

        Run Don’t Walk: The Implication of “While Supplies Last” Prize Promotions

        This month a big-chain grocery store has been offering daily mystery boxes during specific timed drops on a first-come, first-served basis, to users...
        Blog

        Maine’s Noncompete Statute is Reshaped for Health Care Workers: What You Need to Know

        Employers of individuals who are licensed under state law to perform, or provide, health care services in the State of Maine should be prepared for...
        Media Mentions

        Steven Davis Featured in the Environmental Business Journal

        Steven Davis, President of Verrill Strategic Consulting, was recently interviewed and featured in the Environmental Business Journal, Volume 39...
        Blog

        What is a Bonus for Purposes of ERISA?

        An ongoing dispute about a Department of Labor advisory opinion published last September raises a basic but unanswered question under the ERISA: What...
        Media Mentions

        Verrill Recognized by WMTW for Partnership Supporting Hunger Relief in Maine

        Verrill was recently featured in coverage by WMTW News 8 for its role in a collaborative effort to combat food insecurity across southern...
        Press Releases

        33 Verrill Attorneys, Across Four Offices, Recognized in the 2026 Chambers USA Guide

        BOSTON, Massachusetts, PORTLAND, Maine, WESTPORT, Connecticut, and WASHINGTON, D.C. – Verrill has been recognized as a Leading Firm in 14...
        Blog

        Will the Knicks Beat the Spurs? (Are Prediction Market Event Contracts Gambling?)

        For those of you who like to keep score, currently 18 states are engaged in litigation over prediction markets, such as Kalshi and Polymarket,...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Faster Review and Enhanced Enforcement for Benefits-Fraud FCA Matters

        On May 27, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Division issued a new memorandum, “Accelerating Review and Enhancing Enforcement in...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown; Signals Intensified Medicaid Enforcement Nationwide

        On May 21, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a first-of-its kind Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown charging 15 defendants, including...