Skip to content

You are here

Effective October 21, 2019, parties to unfair labor practice or representation cases processed in NLRB Regional Offices must submit all written statements, correspondence, position statements, documentary or any other evidence through the Agency’s electronic filing system (E-Filing). 

Click on the NLRB’s NEW My Account Portal Link to

·        Create an account or access your existing  E-Filing account

·        View your E-Filing History

·        E-File documents in a case or inquiry to which you are a party

·        Manage the contact information associated with your account.

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of December 28 - 31, 2016

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 Public Affairs at or 202‑273‑1991.

Summarized Board Decisions

Shawnee Ready-Mix Concrete & Asphalt Co., Inc.  (04-CA-147344; 363 NLRB No. 88)  Plymouth, PA, December 30, 2015. 

Pursuant to the noncompliance provisions of an informal settlement agreement, the Board granted the General Counsel’s motion for default judgment.  Accordingly, the Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to pay contractually required health and welfare premiums as well as other required payments also related to employee benefits.  The Board ordered the Respondent to restore and to maintain the contractual health and welfare benefits as well as to make employees whole for the required, unmade payments.  Charge filed by Teamsters Local Union No. 401.  Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and McFerran participated. 


GameStop Corp., GameStop Inc., Sunrise Publications, Inc., and GameStop Texas Ltd. (L.P.)  (20-CA-080497; 363 NLRB No. 89)  Sacramento, CA, December 31, 2015.

The Board found that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining and enforcing an arbitration agreement that required employees, as a condition of employment, to waive their right to pursue in any forum, whether arbitral or judicial, either class or collective actions involving employment-related claims.  The Board also found that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) because employees would reasonably believe that the arbitration agreement either bars or restricts their right to file unfair labor practice charges with the Board.  In making these findings, the Board rejected the Respondents’ arguments that (1) the complaint was time-barred under Section 10(b); (2) a purported exemption in the arbitration agreement allowing employees to file charges with administrative agencies, such as the Board, legitimized the agreement; and (3) the agreement’s opt-out provision made employee participation nonmandatory.  On due process grounds, the Board also reversed the judge’s finding that the arbitration agreement’s confidentiality provision was unlawful.  The Board found that the Respondents lacked notice that they were required to defend this provision of the agreement.  Member Miscimarra dissented in part and concurred in part with the decision.  He disagreed with the majority that the Respondents unlawfully required employees to waive their right to pursue employment-related class or collective actions.  He also disagreed that the Respondents, through the arbitration agreement itself and the related summary brochure, unlawfully interfered with employees’ right to file charges with the Board.  However, Member Miscimarra found that, by requiring employees to sign the acknowledgement form that accompanied the agreement the Respondents unlawfully interfered with employees’ right to file charges with the Board.

Charge filed by an individual.  Administrative Law Judge Gerald M. Etchingham issued his decision on August 29, 2013.  Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra and Hirozawa participated.


Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Baker DC, LLC  (05-RC-135621)  Washington, DC, December 28, 2015.  The Board granted review of the Regional Director’s overruling of the Employer’s objection alleging that the Petitioner’s agent engaged in surveillance of voters in the Employer’s lobby and denied review of the Regional Director’s overruling of the Employer’s objection alleging that the Union agents engaged in electioneering.  Chairman Pearce and Members Miscimarra and McFerran participated.

C Cases

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18 (Nerone & Sons, Inc.)  (08-CD-135243, et al.)  Cleveland, OH, December 28, 2015.  In this unpublished order, the Board denied Operating Engineers Local 18’s Motion for Reconsideration of its decision reported at 363 NLRB No. 19.  In the underlying decision, the Board resolved a jurisdictional dispute between Laborers Local 310 and Operating Engineers Local 18, and awarded the disputed work of forklift, skid steer, and bobcat operation to employees represented by Laborers.  In denying reconsideration, the Board rejected Operating Engineers’ argument that its participation in multi-employer agreements evidenced that it had a work preservation objective in seeking the disputed work.  Instead, the Board relied on its previous finding that the Employers involved in this case assigned the disputed work to Operating Engineers only on a sporadic basis.  Under these circumstances, the Board concluded that Operating Engineers had a work acquisition objective in seeking the disputed work.  Charges filed by Nerone and Sons and R.G. Smith Company. Hearing Officer Aaron B. Sukert issued his report on March 31, 2015 and the Board issued its decision in 363 NLRB No. 19 on October 1, 2015.  Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and McFerran participated.

Ironworkers Union Local 433, (In Re: Sotero M. Lopez)  (21-CB-143273)  City of Industry, CA, December 29, 2015.  The Board denied the Union’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Board’s Order denying the Union’s Motion for pre-screening of the filing of a charge.


Appellate Court Decisions

No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.


Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Carnegie Linen Services, Inc.  (02-CA-039560; JD(NY)-49-15)  New York, NY.  Administrative Law Judge Mindy E. Landow issued her decision on December 29, 2015.  Charge filed by Laundry, Distribution, and Food Service Joint Board a/w Workers United a/w SEIU f/k/a Laundry, Drycleaning and Allied Workers Joint Board, Workers United.

The New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens  (29-CA-136515; JD(NY)-46-15)  Flushing, NY.  Administrative Law Judge Steven Fish issued his decision on December 31, 2015.  Charge filed by an individual.

Liberty Glass & Metal, Inc. (31-CA-149721, 31-CA-151870 and 31-RC-147046; JD(SF)-50-15) Upland, CA, December 31, 2015.  Errata to December 15, 2015 Decision of Administrative Law Judge Ariel L. Sotolongo.  Errata   Amended Decision.


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

Connect with Us