Share of union elections with an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge against the employer, by detailed charge type: Data for elections for which a petition was filed or the election was completed in 2016–2017

Charge type Share of elections with the specified charge
Overall (any ULP charge) 41.5%
Illegal firing, narrowly defined 19.9%
Illegal firing, broadly defined 29.6%
8(a)(1) 29.2%
Coercive statements (threats, promises of benefits, etc.) 18.2%
Concerted activities (retaliation, discharge, discipline) 16.2%
Coercive actions (surveillance, etc.) 13.9%
Coercive rules 7.7%
Interrogation (including polling) 7.3%
Other 8(a)(1) allegations 5.8%
8(a)(2) 2.7%
8(a)(3) 29.3%
Changes in terms and conditions of employment 17.3%
Discharge (including layoff and refusal to hire (not salting)) 19.9%
Discipline 14.9%
Other 8(a)(3) allegations 2.1%
8(a)(4) 6.3%
8(a)(5) 27.0%
Refusal to bargain/bad faith bargaining including surface bargaining/direct dealing 18.6%
Repudiation/modification of contract (Section 8(d)/unilateral changes) 18.5%
Refusal to furnish information 12.5%
Other 8(a)(5) allegations 5.6%

Notes: ULP charges are charges that an employer violated Section 8(a) of the labor code by interfering with workers’ rights to form a union and bargain collectively. Specific charge types 8(a)(1), 8(a)(2), etc., refer to sections of the labor code governing these rights. “Overall (any ULP charge)” refers to any violation of Section 8(a) of the labor code (parts 1–5). “Narrowly defined” illegal firings refers only to ULP charges in the category “Discharge (including layoff and refusal to hire (not salting))” from 8(a)(3). “Broadly defined” also includes ULP charges in the categories “Concerted activities (retaliation, discharge, discipline)” from 8(a)(1) and “Changes in terms and conditions of employment” from 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(4).

Source: Authors’ analysis of National Labor Relations Board election data for calendar years 2016–2017 and ULP filings from fiscal years 2015–2018

View the underlying data on