Faster Labor Contracts Act: What Employers Need to Know

On June 9, 2026, the House passed the Faster Labor Contracts Act (H.R.5408), a proposed law that would establish strict timelines and mandatory binding arbitration for reaching first union contracts. Twenty Republicans voted with Democrats, signaling a potential shift in the political landscape for labor relations. The Faster Labor Contract Act (the “Act”) now goes to the Senate, where it will move through committee before potentially being brought to the floor for a vote.

How the Act Would Change Current Law

The Act would impose a dramatic shift in the bargaining process and timeline for newly recognized unions. The objective of the Act is to shorten the timeline between recognition or certification of a union and agreement on a finalized contract. Under current law, there is no set timeline for negotiations. Negotiating a first contract is typically a very lengthy process, as each party works through their priorities and endeavors to reach agreement on a wide range of topics related to wages, benefits, and working conditions. The Act cites to a study that reveals that currently the average collective bargaining agreement takes 465 days to be finalized.[1] The Act states (without citation) that delays in reaching a first agreement primarily benefit employers opposed to labor organizations, and that employers can use those delays to sap labor organization resolve and secure more favorable terms for the employer.

Under the Act, unless the parties agree otherwise, within 10 days of a written request to bargain from a newly recognized or certified union, the parties are legally required to meet and begin bargaining collectively and must make every reasonable effort to conclude and sign a collective bargaining agreement. If, after 90 days, no agreement has been reached, either party may notify the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (“FMCS”) and request a mediation.[2] If after the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the request for mediation is made, or such additional period as the parties may agree upon, FMCS is not able to bring the parties to agreement through mediation, FMCS will refer the parties to a three-person arbitration panel.[3] A majority of the three-person arbitration panel renders a decision settling the dispute and such decision is binding upon the parties for a period of two years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties. The Act is silent regarding who pays for the arbitration and does not provide for any recourse to the parties if the arbitrators impose contract terms that are impractical, unreasonable, or otherwise objectionable.[4]

The Act would also codify into law an employer’s obligation to maintain the status quo during bargaining under the NLRA. Currently, the NLRA does not mandate that employers maintain the status quo during bargaining; however, the Supreme Court held in 1962 that an employer’s failure to do so constitutes an unlawful failure to bargain in good faith. Adding this requirement to the law itself would prevent the Supreme Court from overturning that well-established precedent. See N.L.R.B. v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 738–9, 743 (1962) (“We hold that an employer’s unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation is…a violation of §8(a) (5)”).

Further, the Act would require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report analyzing the average number of dates between when a union is certified or recognized and the date when the parties enter into a collective bargaining agreement. Notably, there is no current reporting requirement to the Board for these dates, and the statistics referred to in the Act are based on only a sample of employers.

What’s Next

It is not clear whether the proposed law is likely to pass in the Senate, where there is currently a Republican majority. A companion bill was introduced in 2025 by a Republican senator, indicating that, as was the case it the House, there is some bipartisan support for its passage. Even if it does pass, however, it could be vetoed by the President, who has already sought to effectively dismantle FMCS.[5]

Were the Act to pass, there are a number of uncertainties and unanswered questions. Is FMCS prepared for the massive influx of cases after being under scrutiny of the Trump Administration? Who would pay for the arbitration? What recourse would the parties have if a well-meaning but misguided arbitration panel imposes terms that are not practicable?

For more questions regarding the Faster Labor Contracts Act, or any aspect of unionization, collective bargaining or other labor law topics, contact a member of the HRW Labor Law Practice Group:

• Kathleen Berney (kberney@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4335);

• Tavish Brown (tbrown@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4366);

• John Graff (jgraff@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4356);

• Jeff Hirsch (jhirsch@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4315);

• Samantha Halem (shalem@hrwlawyers.com / 781-235-4878);

• Tierra Jenkins (tjenkins@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4331);

• Pete Moser (pmoser@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4323);

• Catherine Reuben (creuben@hrwlawyers.com / 617-348-4316); or

• Any member of the HRW Team

^[1]This statistic comes from Bloomberg Law Labor Data. Since the proposed law was written in 2021, the statistics have been updated to an average of 444 days. The analysis looks at 454 first contracts and the dates of each of their NLRB election and subsequent contract ratification from information that Bloomberg has obtained from 2005-2023. https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/BLLE/page/le_labor_plus

^[2]This would be a change from current policy, where both parties need to request mediation. https://www.fmcs.gov/resources/faqs/

^[3]Current regulations do not mandate arbitration between parties. 29 C.F.R. §1404.9. See generally, https://www.fmcs.gov/services/arbitration/

^[4]Per the Federal Arbitration Act, the parties would presumably have very limited rights of appeal

^[5] In March 2025, FMCS was listed as one of the agencies that would be significantly reduced in Executive Order 14238. A federal judge has since ordered the reversal of the reduction in force, but the President has also asked Congress for a dramatic reduction in FMCS’s budget, calling into question whether FMCS could, as a practical matter, effectively perform the mediation and arbitration referral services required of it under the Act. See generally, https:// news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/federal-mediation-services-future-dim-despite-workers-return