Legal Definitions - Mike O'Connor rule

The Mike O'Connor rule is a principle in U.S. labor law that addresses an employer's actions after employees vote to unionize but before any challenges to that election are resolved. It states that if an employer makes changes to employees' wages, hours, or working conditions without negotiating with the union during this interim period, and subsequently the employer's challenges to the union election are rejected, then those unilateral changes are automatically considered violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

This rule exists because if the employer's objections to the election are ultimately dismissed, the law treats the employer as having had a legal duty to bargain with the union from the moment the union won the election. Therefore, any changes made without bargaining during that time are seen as a failure to uphold that duty. If, however, the employer's objections are upheld, meaning the union's victory is invalidated, then the employer never had a duty to bargain, and the changes would not be considered violations under this rule.

• Example 1: Changes to Employee Benefits

  Imagine "Innovate Solutions," a tech company, where employees successfully vote to form a union. Innovate Solutions, however, files objections with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), claiming that the union engaged in improper voter coercion. While these objections are being investigated, Innovate Solutions unilaterally announces a reduction in health insurance coverage for all employees, effective next month, without consulting the newly elected union representatives.

  How it illustrates the rule: If the NLRB later rejects Innovate Solutions' objections, thereby validating the union's election win, then the company will be deemed to have violated the NLRA by changing employee benefits without bargaining. The Mike O'Connor rule makes this an automatic violation because, once the objections are dismissed, the company is retroactively considered to have had a legal duty to bargain with the union from the date of the election.

• Example 2: Altering Work Schedules

  Consider "Precision Parts," a manufacturing plant where employees vote to unionize. Precision Parts files objections, alleging irregularities in the election process, such as ballot tampering. During the period while these objections are being reviewed by the NLRB, management implements a new mandatory rotating shift schedule for all production staff, replacing the previous fixed shifts, without discussing it with the newly elected union.

  How it illustrates the rule: Should the NLRB ultimately dismiss Precision Parts' objections, confirming the union's certification, the company's unilateral change to the work schedule would be an automatic violation under the Mike O'Connor rule. This is because, retroactively, Precision Parts had a legal obligation to bargain with the union about such significant changes to working conditions from the date the union won the election.

• Example 3: Modifying Compensation Structure

  At a specific store of the "Urban Outfitters" retail chain, employees vote to form a union. Urban Outfitters files objections, arguing that certain supervisory employees improperly influenced the vote. While the NLRB investigates these objections, the store management decides to eliminate the quarterly performance bonus program for sales associates and replace it with a new, less predictable commission structure, without discussing it with the union representatives.

  How it illustrates the rule: If the NLRB ultimately overrules Urban Outfitters' objections, confirming the union's victory, then the company's unilateral alteration of the compensation structure would be an automatic violation of the NLRA under the Mike O'Connor rule. The rule applies because, once the objections are dismissed, the employer is considered to have had a duty to bargain with the union about wages and benefits from the date of the election.