29 C.F.R. § 103.20

Election procedures and blocking charges

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Whenever any party to a representation proceeding files an unfair labor practice charge together with a request that it block the processing of the petition to the election, or whenever any party to a representation proceeding requests that its previously filed unfair labor practice charge block the further processing of the petition, the party shall simultaneously file, but not serve on any other party, a written offer of proof in support of the charge. The offer of proof shall provide the names of the witnesses who will testify in support of the charge and a summary of each witness's anticipated testimony. The party seeking to block the processing of a petition shall also promptly make available to the regional director the witnesses identified in its offer of proof.

(b) If the regional director determines that the party's offer of proof describes evidence that, if proven, would interfere with employee free choice in an election, the regional director shall, absent special circumstances, hold the petition in abeyance and notify the parties of this determination.

(c) If the regional director determines that the party's offer of proof describes evidence that, if proven, would be inherently inconsistent with the petition itself, the regional director shall, absent special circumstances, hold the petition in abeyance and notify the parties of this determination; in appropriate circumstances, the regional director should dismiss the petition subject to reinstatement and notify the parties of this determination.

(d) If the regional director determines that the party's offer of proof does not describe evidence that, if proven, would interfere with employee free choice in an election or would be inherently inconsistent with the petition itself, and thus would require that the processing of the petition be held in abeyance absent special circumstances, the regional director shall continue to process the petition and conduct the election where appropriate.

(e) If, after holding a petition in abeyance, the regional director determines that special circumstances have arisen or that employee free choice is possible notwithstanding the pendency of the unfair labor practices, the regional director may resume processing the petition.

(f) If, upon completion of investigation of the charge, the regional director determines that the charge lacks merit and is to be dismissed, absent withdrawal, the regional director shall resume processing the petition, provided that resumption of processing is otherwise appropriate.

(g) Upon final disposition of a charge that the regional director initially determined had merit, the regional director shall resume processing a petition that was held in abeyance due to the pendency of the charge, provided that resumption of processing is otherwise appropriate.

(h) The provisions of this section are intended to be severable. If any paragraph of this section is held to be unlawful, the remaining paragraphs of this section not deemed unlawful are intended to remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law.

[89 FR 63026, Aug. 1, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 717 F.3d 947 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 717 F.3d 947 (D.C. Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “e based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom 19 Our conclusion here does not affect the Board’s rule requiring employers to post an election…”

Associated Builders & Contractors of Texas, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 826 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2016). “at 74,418-19 ; 29 C.F.R. § 103.20 (requiring that a party who files an unfair labor practice charge simultaneously file a “written offer of proof in support of that charge”).”

Baker DC, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 102 F. Supp. 3d 194 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 2× “neral employee rights notice in the National Association of Manufacturers case from an éxisting election notice posting rule that did not include the improper enforcement mechanisms: Our conclusion here does not affect the Board’s rule requiring employers to post an election…”

Chamber of Com. of the United States of Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 118 F. Supp. 3d 171 (D.D.C. 2015). “”), citing 29 C.F.R. § 103.20 (d) (2013). Like the election notice posting requirement deemed to be lawful by the D.”

Pannier Corp., Graphics Div., Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Respondent/cross-Petitioner, 120 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “In forwarding it, the Board also included a *605 copy of the Board’s rule regarding the posting of notices of election, 29 C.F.R. § 103.20 . The rule reads as follows: (a) Employers shall post copies of the Board’s official Notice of Election in conspicuous places at least 3…”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc., 138 F. App'x 128 (11th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 103.20 (a). 4 The NLRB has said that the disclaimer removes any “reasonable impression that the Board favors or endorses any choice in the election.”

Kerwin v. Trinity Health Grand Haven Hosp. (W.D. Mich. 2024). “” 29 C.F.R. § 103.20 (a), (c); available at https://www.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.