Dear Colleagues,

I write to share an update on a pending union issue. 

On Thursday, March 9, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB, or the Board) published a notice in the Federal Register to rescind four provisions in its own regulations, including one that provides for automatic impoundment of ballots under certain circumstances when a petition for review is pending before the Board. The NLRB took this action to comply with a recent federal court case dealing with the procedures by which the Board can revise its own rules.  

The ballots from last year’s union election were impounded by the NLRB’s Regional Director in Boston because we requested a review of the decision to include faculty and staff in the same bargaining unit. As explained in this February 7, 2022 message, we made the request for review because a bargaining unit constructed in this way is unprecedented under the NLRB’s own legal standards and impractical as a framework for collective bargaining. Our request was made in accordance with the Board rules and regulations in effect at the time. 

As you may recall, last March the NLRB in Washington granted our request for review of the Regional Director’s decision. In doing so, the Board stated that the decision raised “substantial issues warranting review” regarding whether or not the Regional Director’s inclusion of both faculty and staff in the same bargaining unit was appropriate. We have all been waiting for a final ruling by the NLRB.

In response to the announcement last week that the NLRB has rescinded the rule requiring the impoundment of election ballots while requests for review are pending before the full Board, counsel for the union requested that the Regional Director count the impounded ballots in our case “as soon as possible.” We opposed this request, because, among other things, it is not clear whether the change in the rule applies retroactively to cases, like ours, already pending before the Board or whether it applies only to future cases. Additionally, since our case questions the way the bargaining unit—and by extension the voting unit or units—is defined, opening ballots before the full Board in Washington has ruled on the underlying question of whether the unit is appropriate is particularly problematic in this case.

On Friday, March 10, the Regional Director issued a statement rejecting the union counsel’s request for the immediate counting of ballots, noting, “I believe that it is appropriate for the Board to determine whether the ballots in this case should be opened and counted at this time.” In other words, the Regional Director is of the view that the question of whether and when ballots should be counted in our case is a matter for the full Board in Washington to interpret in light of its own rules. We expect that the Board will issue such guidance.

I know that this has been a long process, and I recognize the frustration for union-eligible employees, regardless of how you voted, and for other colleagues across the college, in not yet knowing the final outcome. We will make sure to keep you posted on developments as the process moves forward.

Sincerely,

Clayton