Could Dana Corp be the EFCA compromise?

One of the things the NLRB does well is compile and release statistics on case handling. Sure its self-serving in part, but it does provide raw data. In the latest report there is a real nugget. More after the jump.

"The [NLRB] received 482 requests for Dana notification during FY 2009.  In seven of these matters, a petition for certification (RC) was filed after notices to employees were posted.  In 27 of these matters, a petition for decertification (RD) was filed after the notices were posted."

Dana Corporation involved a new process for addressing concerns that employees did not have an opportunity to vote on whether or not they wanted union representation in the situation where an employer agrees to recognize a union based upon a petition or cards signed by a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for collective bargaining. Dana provided employees with a 45 day window in which to seek a showing of interest for a secret ballot election. The new procedure required the posting of a notice advising employees of the path to seeking an election. The MLRB issued the notice 482 times during FY 2009. Labor absolutely loathed the Dana decision because it intruded upon the cozy relations it had with some employers. But these new statistics support our prior conclusion a Dana approach might be a very good way for Unions to pass a modified version of EFCA that has a back-end Dana opportunity for a secret ballot vote. Less than 10% of the Dana notices resulted in the filing of election petitions in FY 2009. Had the unions embraced card check with a Dana option the secret ballot election argument would have been muted, political support easier to garner and yet few challenges would result in secret ballot elections. As in the previous post, we must clearly disclaim any support for this approach, and as a representative of employers, are happy the unions rejected it too.