House Passes the Faster Labor Contracts Act: What Employers Need to Know

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 230–193 to pass the Faster Labor Contracts Act ("FLCA"), a bipartisan bill that would fundamentally alter the process by which employers and newly certified unions negotiate first collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs").[1] Twenty Republicans joined 210 Democrats in supporting the bill's passage.[2]  Breaking from a traditional pro-business perspective, these House Republicans supported the bill, just as many also recently voted in favor of a Teamster-backed bill (the Railway Safety Act) which mandates two engineers must be assigned per freight train (whereas the EU only requires one). The FLCA now heads to the Senate, where its prospects remain uncertain.

Congress's stated findings in the FLCA highlight the protracted nature of first-contract negotiations following a successful union election.[3] According to Bloomberg Law data compiled from 553 first contracts between 2005 and 2025, it takes an average of 461 days for a union to ratify its first contract.[4] Other research cited in the bill places that figure at 465 days.[5]

Under current federal labor law, there are no time deadlines for parties to negotiate or reach agreement on a first contract.[6] Although employers are required to bargain in good faith, they are not obligated to agree to any particular union proposal. While management’s longstanding right to reject union proposals is maintained, the FLCA would significantly change the traditional framework by imposing the following mandatory timelines and compelled arbitration:

• Bargaining must begin within 10 days. Upon receiving a written request from a newly recognized or certified union, the employer must commence bargaining within ten days.
• Mediation available after 90 days. If no agreement is reached after 90 days of bargaining, either party may request the involvement of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
• Binding arbitration after 30 additional days. If mediation does not produce an agreement within 30 days, the dispute would be submitted to a three-member arbitration panel. One arbitrator would be selected by the union, one by the employer, and the third would be jointly selected.
• Two-year binding contract. A majority of the arbitration panel would render a decision settling the dispute, and such decision would be binding upon the parties for a period of two years, unless amended by written consent.
• Factors for arbitration. The arbitration panel's decision must be based on (i) the employer's financial status and prospects; (ii) the size and type of the employer's operations and business; (iii) the employees' cost of living; (iv) the employees' ability to sustain themselves and their families on wages and benefits earned from the employer; and (v) the wages and benefits other employers in the same business provide their employees.[7]

While the FLCA's passage in the House is significant, the bill faces substantial hurdles in the Senate. The measure faces a slim chance of clearing the Senate (the bill has sat without a vote in the HELP Committee since March of 2025) and would likely be vetoed by President Trump even if it were to reach his desk.[8] Supporters do not yet appear to have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.[9]

The FLCA represents a significant departure from traditional U.S. labor law, which has long relied on voluntary agreement, not government-imposed terms, to resolve contract disputes. If enacted, the legislation would have several notable impacts on employer operations and labor relations strategy:

• Compressed bargaining timelines. Employers would have a maximum of approximately 130 days from a union's initial bargaining request before facing binding arbitration. This leaves considerably less time for the deliberative, measured approach many employers currently take in first-contract negotiations.
• Government-imposed contract terms. Perhaps most concerning for employers is the prospect that arbitrators with limited familiarity with a company's operations, financial condition, competitive environment, and workforce needs could impose contract provisions with significant operational and economic consequences. Terms relating to wages, benefits, scheduling, overtime, discipline, staffing levels, seniority, and job bidding could substantially increase labor costs and reduce operational flexibility. Note also the bill takes away the ratification vote of the workers – employees also must accept the arbitration panel’s terms.
• Reduced leverage in negotiations. Under the current framework, employers retain substantial bargaining leverage because they are not required to make concessions or agree to specific terms. The FLCA would effectively eliminate this dynamic by creating an endpoint that employers cannot avoid.
• Potential shift in organizing strategy. The bill could reshape union organizing strategy if enacted, as unions would have far greater confidence that a successful election will lead to an actual contract within a compressed timeframe.
• Limited appeal rights. The bill's binding arbitration framework provides limited recourse for employers dissatisfied with an imposed contract's terms.

The Chief Human Resources Officers (CHRO) Association, which represents chief human resource officers at 350 large corporations, has called the measure "draconian," noting that while contract negotiations can be frustrating, "it's very, very important to get these things right the first time."[10]

Even with the bill's uncertain Senate prospects, employers should treat the FLCA as a signal to reassess both union-organizing preparedness and first-contract bargaining readiness. If enacted, the legislation could shorten the period between certification and binding contract terms, increase the consequences of early bargaining decisions, and make it more difficult to preserve operational flexibility once a first contract is imposed or agreed to. This can mean many employers may face unfavorable first contract terms that will be challenging to bargain away from in subsequent contracts. Additionally, these changes could stifle employee decertification efforts within one year of initial certification.

Non-union employers should therefore focus on lawful, proactive labor-relations strategies: communicating accurate facts and opinions about unionization consistent with Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act; training supervisors on what they may and may not say during organizing activity; maintaining competitive and consistently applied workplace policies; and preparing bargaining teams, data, and financial analyses before any organizing campaign or certification occurs. Employers should avoid conduct that could be viewed as threatening, interrogating, promising benefits, surveilling, retaliating against employees for protected activity, or otherwise interfering with employees' rights under the NLRA. Employers should also ensure human resources and labor relations personnel understand and are prepared to navigate the FLCA's proposed compressed timeline and, if they oppose the legislation, may consider contacting their Senators to express their views.

If you have questions about how the Faster Labor Contracts Act may affect your organization's labor relations strategy, collective bargaining preparedness, or broader employment practices, please contact a member of our Labor-Management Relations team.

[1] Faster Labor Contracts Act, H.R. 5408, 119th Cong. (2026).

[2] Andrea Hsu, House Approves Bill to Speed Up Union Contract Negotiations, NPR (June 9, 2026), https://www.npr.org/2026/06/09/nx-s1-5851813/house-bill-labor-union-contract-negotiations.

[3] H.R. 5408 § 2(2)–(3).

[4] Id. § 2(3); see also Bloomberg L. analysis of 553 first contracts ratified between 2005 and 2025 (finding average of 461 days to first contract).

[5] H.R. 5408 § 2(3) (citing Bloomberg Law study from 2021 finding average of 465 days between union election and first contract).

[6] Tevin Hopkins & Steven Moss, The Faster Labor Contracts Act Would Permit Federal Government to Impose Union Contract Terms on Employers, Benesch (June 8, 2026), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-faster-labor-contracts-act-would-9958238/.

[7] H.R. 5408 § 3 (proposing amendments to Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158).

[8] House Set to Consider Major Change to Law Governing First Union Contracts, CWC (May 27, 2026), https://cwc.org/CWC/Updates/2026/House-Set-To-Consider-Major-Change-To-Law-Governing-First-Union-Contracts.aspx.; House Poised to Pass Labor Arbitration Bill; Senate Chances Increase, CHRO Ass'n (June 2026), https://www.chro.org/w/house-poised-to-pass-labor-arbitration-bill-senate-chances-increase.

[9] Faster Labor Contracts Act, S. 844, 119th Cong. § 1 (2025) (introduced by Sen. Hawley (R-MO) with Sens. Booker (D-NJ), Peters (D-MI), Moreno (R-OH), and Merkley (D-OR) as co-sponsors).

[10] Hsu, supra note 2 (quoting Gregory Hoff, General Counsel, CHRO Ass'n).