Proposed Labor Law Sets Two-Thirds Voter Quorum for Union Elections, Locks in Representation for Years

The aptly named Worker RESULTS Act is looking to fundamentally change the rules of the road for union elections and collective bargaining, specifically by making it much harder for employees to challenge or change their representation once an election is won. This bill targets the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and introduces strict new timelines and high voting thresholds that could significantly impact the power balance between workers, unions, and employers.

The High Bar for Certification

Right now, when employees vote to unionize, the standard rule is that a majority of those who vote decide the outcome. This bill, however, throws a major wrench into that system. Under the proposed changes to Section 9(a), for a union to be certified as the exclusive representative, it must be selected by a majority of voters in a secret ballot election where at least two-thirds of all eligible employees in the unit actually cast a vote.

Think about your last company-wide survey or internal election. Getting two-thirds of everyone to participate is a massive hurdle. If you work in a unit of 150 people, 100 people need to vote just to meet the quorum. If only 99 people vote, the election fails, and no representative is certified. This provision could make it extremely difficult for small or geographically dispersed units to ever successfully unionize, effectively allowing a large group of non-voters to block the wishes of the majority who did participate.

Locking the Door: The Election Bar

The most significant change for employees already represented is the new election bar, which severely restricts when workers can challenge their union. If a union wins the initial election, the Board must dismiss any petition for a new election until a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is officially in effect. This is a huge shift, as it creates an immediate, indefinite bar until the first contract is signed—even if the bargaining process drags on for years.

Once that first contract is signed, the bill introduces rigid “window periods” for future elections tied directly to the contract length. For a typical two-year contract, employees only get a 90-day window to file a petition to decertify or change unions. That window opens 150 days before the contract expires and closes 60 days before it expires. If you miss that window, you are locked in for the entire next contract term. For healthcare workers, the windows are slightly longer but still highly restrictive. This system prioritizes stability over employee choice, potentially locking workers into representation they no longer want for years at a time.

The “Blocking Charge” Shuffle

Another major revision deals with the NLRB’s ability to pause an election when serious unfair labor practice (ULP) charges are filed—the so-called “blocking charge” doctrine. Historically, if an employer was accused of illegal coercion, the Board might delay the election to ensure a fair vote.

This bill severely limits that power. Under the new rules, if a ULP charge is filed to block an election, the party making the charge must immediately provide an offer of proof, including witness names and testimony summaries. More critically, the Board cannot generally impound ballots for more than 60 days after the election, even if the investigation is ongoing. If the charge isn't resolved or a formal complaint hasn't been issued within those 60 days, the ballots are counted. This means elections could proceed and results be certified even while serious allegations of employer misconduct—like illegal firings or threats—are still being investigated, potentially undermining the integrity of the vote.

Other Notable Changes

Beyond elections, the bill also creates a new unfair labor practice. It would be illegal for a union to enter into a “no-raid agreement” with another union, where they agree not to solicit or compete for the same group of workers. While this might sound like it encourages competition, these agreements often serve to stabilize multi-union workplaces or define jurisdictional lines, and making them illegal could introduce new chaos into organized sectors.

Finally, the bill eliminates the “successor bar,” meaning that if your company is acquired by a new employer, employees are immediately free to petition for a new election. This is one area where the bill actually increases employee flexibility, as the current rule often prevents elections for a reasonable period after an acquisition to allow the new employer to settle in.