Summaries of NLRB Decisions for Week of October 13 - 17, 2025

The Summary of NLRB Decisions is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to substitute for the opinions of the NLRB.  Inquiries should be directed to the Office of the Executive Secretary at 202‑273‑1940.

Summarized Board Decisions

No Published Decisions Issued.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

No Unpublished R Cases Issued.

C Cases

No Unpublished C Cases Issued.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

Nexstar Media, Inc. (Denver Hub), Board No. 27-CA-342707 (reported at 374 NLRB No. 1), and Nexstar Media Group, Inc. (KDVR-TV), Board No. 27-CA-342708 (reported at 374 NLRB No. 5) (5th Cir. Oct. 15, 2025)

In identical per curiam opinions, the Fifth Circuit, in a pair of test-of-certification cases, enforced the Board’s bargaining orders that issued against this operator of television stations that employs teams located at five central geographical hubs.  The orders issued after the Court cancelled oral argument and took submission on the briefs.  Under its local Rule 47.6, which provides for affirmance without opinion, the Court’s ruling in each of the opinions was simply “ENFORCED.”

In the representation case underlying the first Board order (374 NLRB No. 1), the National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians–Communications Workers of America, AFL–CIO, filed a petition to represent the operators, shift leads, and ingest leads at Nexstar’s hub in Denver, Colorado.  Nexstar opposed and argued that the petition was tainted by the involvement of shift leads, which it claimed were supervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act.  After a hearing, the Regional Director issued a decision finding that Nexstar had not met its burden to show that shift leads possess supervisory authority on the claimed bases that they assign and responsibly direct the work of operators. The Regional Director then directed that an election be held in a unit of operators and shift leads, with ingest leads able to vote under challenge.  The election was held in April 2024, which the Union won 35 to 9, with 3 challenged ballots, and Nexstar filed election objections for which the Regional Director found the proffers of evidence insufficient, and certified the Union. Nexstar then filed requests for review, which were denied by the Board (Chairman McFerran, and Members Prouty and Wilcox).  Thereafter, Nexstar refused to bargain in order to seek court review. 

In the representation case underlying the second Board order (374 NLRB No. 5), the Union filed a petition to represent, as relevant here, the Directors and Production Technicians in Denver, Colorado.  In response, Nexstar argued that the appropriate unit must also include Photographers and Maintenance Engineers.  After a hearing, the Regional Director issued a decision that applied Specialty Healthcare to find that the Directors and Production Technicians constituted a readily identifiable group and shared a community of interest that supported their designation as an appropriate unit.  The Regional Director further found that Nexstar failed to show that the additional employees shared an overwhelming community of interest with the Directors and Production Technicians so as to render the smaller petitioned-for unit inappropriate.  See Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011), enforced sub nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013).  The Regional Director then directed an election, which was held in April 2024 and resulted in a vote of 17 to 3 in favor of the Union.  Nexstar then filed election objections, which the Regional Director found did not present sufficient evidence establishing the existence of substantial and material factual issues which, if resolved in its favor, would require setting aside the election.  The Regional Director issued a decision overruling the objections and certifying the Union.  Nexstar then filed requests for review, which were denied by the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox).  Thereafter, Nexstar refused to bargain in order to seek court review.

The Court’s opinions are here and here. 

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

No Administrative Law Judge Decisions Issued.

                                                                                            ***

To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.