Summaries of NLRB Decisions for Week of September 2 - 5, 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Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases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No Unpublished R Cases Issued.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No Unpublished C Cases Issued.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
Compañia Cervecera de Puerto Rico, Inc., Board No. 12-CA-295428 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 47) (D.C. Cir. Sept. 5, 2025)
In a published opinion, the D.C. Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against this brewing and bottling company in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, where a 120-person unit has been represented by the Union Independiente de Trabajadores de Cerveceria India for 30 years. While the parties were bargaining for a successor agreement in 2021, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox) found that the Employer placed the Union President on an unpaid six-month leave in retaliation for his protected activities in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1). The Board also found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally imposing that leave and by implementing its last, best, and final offer on a proposed contract article covering work schedules without reaching a valid overall impasse in bargaining. The Court (Judges Childs and Rogers; Judge Rao, dissenting) held that the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and otherwise consistent with law.
On review, the Court rejected the Employer’s challenges to the Board’s finding that it unlawfully placed the Union President on six months of unpaid leave. Contrary to the Employer’s contention, the Court held that placing him on leave was not automatically triggered when he exceeded the 200-hour limit. The Court noted that the relevant contract provision provided that employees engaged in union business may take up to 200 work hours of paid leave annually, and that if there were a need for more time, it was up to the employee to request it, and not for the Employer to impose it. Further, the Court upheld the Board’s finding of animus based on timing and the Employer’s other anti-union actions. Lastly, the Court agreed with the Board that the Employer had not carried its burden under Wright Line to show that it would have taken the same action absent the Union President’s protected activities.
The Court upheld on substantial-evidence grounds the Board’s findings that the Employer committed bargaining violations. On the unilateral change, the Court held that the Board correctly found that the employer unlawfully changed a mandatory subject of bargaining specified in the contract when it placed the Union President on leave. Further, regarding the impasse violation, the Court cited Erie Brush & Mfg. Corp. v. NLRB, 700 F.3d 17 (D.C. Cir. 2012), for the relevant inquiry, and found that the record evidence supported the Board’s conclusion that, although the work schedule issue was critical to the parties’ negotiations, that single issue did not lead to a breakdown in the overall negotiations.
Judge Rao wrote a dissenting opinion to express her view that the Board’s decision ignored basic principles of contract interpretation, misapplied the standard for finding a bargaining impasse, and was not supported by substantial evidence.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Starbucks Corporation (14–CA–321382; JD-73-25) Affton, MO. Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble issued her decision on September 2, 2025. Charge filed by Chicago & Midwest Regional Joint Board, Workers United/SEIU.
Trader Joe’s East (09-CA-335100; JD–74–25) Louisville, KY. Administrative Law Judge Sarah Karpinen issued her decision on September 4, 2025. Charge filed by Trader Joe’s United.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.