Summaries of NLRB Decisions for Week of October 20 - 24, 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Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases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No Unpublished R Cases Issued.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No Unpublished C Cases Issued.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
Macy's, Inc., Board No. 20-CA-270047 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 42) (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2025)
In a published amended opinion, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for en banc rehearing filed by Macy’s which had sought reversal of the holding in the Court’s original opinion that rejected Macy’s challenge to the Board’s order requiring it to compensate unlawfully locked-out employees for any direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms pursuant to Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022), enforcement denied on other grounds, 102 F.4th 727 (5th Cir. 2024). The amended opinion affirmed the Court’s earlier analysis of the Board’s Thryv remedy. Regarding any specific forms of such remedies, however, the Court explained that its amendments to the original opinion “reiterate, perhaps to the point of redundancy, that we are unable to permit or prohibit any specific forms of relief at this stage,” because such determinations “must await the forthcoming compliance proceeding.” Other modifications included the expansion of the original partial dissent, the Court’s response to new points raised therein, as well as a dissent to the denial of en banc rehearing.
The Court’s amended opinion is here.
Airgas USA, LLC, Board No. 31-CA-226568 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 102) (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2025)
In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against this distributor of compressed gas for unfair-labor-practices it committed at its facility in Burbank, California, where it employs drivers to deliver cylinders of gas to customers. In September 2018, the drivers voted to be represented by Teamsters Local 848. The Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty; Member Kaplan, dissenting in part) found that Airgas violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminatorily withholding a wage increase from union-represented drivers in retaliation for voting for the Union, and Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by changing the drivers’ schedules, hours, and overtime, and laying off one driver, without giving the Union notice or an opportunity to bargain.
On review, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Airgas unlawfully withheld an established wage increase from the union-represented drivers, while granting a wage increase to its non-union employees at the Burbank facility. The Court also upheld the Board’s finding that Airgas unlawfully presented its lay-off of the driver to the Union as a fait accompli, thereby failing to provide the Union with an opportunity to bargain over the decision. Lastly, the Court summarily enforced those portions of the Board’s order remedying the uncontested findings that Airgas unilaterally changed the drivers’ schedules, hours, and overtime without bargaining with the Union.
The Court’s opinion is 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.