Skip to main content


  1. Home
  2. Cases & Decisions

Cases and Decisions


Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 1 - 5, 2019

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

Ridgewood Health Care Center, Inc. and Ridgewood Health Services, Inc. a single employer  (10-CA-113669 and 10-CA-136190; 367 NLRB No. 110)  Jasper, AL, April 2, 2019.

The Board unanimously affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondents: (1) violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminatorily refusing to hire four employee applicants in order to suppress the number of former employees of their predecessor below a majority of those hired; (2) were therefore a legal successor to the predecessor employer with a bargaining obligation to the incumbent Union; and, accordingly, (3) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.  The Board found it unnecessary to reach the judge’s alternative rationale that the Respondents were a “perfectly clear” successor based on promises that they would hire 99.9 percent of the predecessor’s employees without clearly and concurrently announcing new terms and conditions of employment.  Similarly, the Board found it unnecessary to reach the judge’s third rationale for finding successorship—that the 19 employees hired into the newly-created job classification of helping hands should not be included in the unit for majority status purposes.

However, a Board majority (Chairman Ring and Members Kaplan and Emanuel) concluded that no Love’s Barbeque remedy was warranted, i.e., the Respondents did not violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by setting initial terms and conditions of employment upon assuming the predecessor’s operations notwithstanding the discriminatory hiring violations.  The majority overruled precedent that had extended the Love’s Barbeque remedy beyond its historical application to include situations in which, absent hiring discrimination, an employer would have planned to retain a sufficient number of predecessor employees to make it evident that an incumbent union’s majority status would continue.  The majority held that the Love’s Barbeque remedy applies exclusively to situations in which an ordinary successor employer’s hiring discrimination created such uncertainty as to make it impossible to determine whether the employer would have hired all or substantially all of the predecessor employees absent that discrimination.  Dissenting, Member McFerran would have continued the Board’s application of the Love’s Barbeque remedy to situations in which a successor employer’s workforce would be composed of a majority of represented predecessor employees absent the successor’s hiring discrimination against predecessor employees.

Charges filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW).  Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on March 27, 2015.  Chairman Ring and Members McFerran, Kaplan, and Emanuel participated.


Sysco Grand Rapids, LLC  (07-CA-146820, et al.; 367 NLRB No. 111)  Grand Rapids, MI, April 4, 2019.

The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging an employee and by reducing the hours of another employee, and violated Section 8(a)(1) by, inter alia, threatening employees with loss of wages, benefits, and jobs; interrogating employees; threatening plant closure; and soliciting grievances with a responsive grant of benefits.  The Board unanimously agreed that the Respondent’s unfair labor practices warranted a broad cease-and-desist order, and special remedies including notice-reading, and bulletin board and other access remedies, for the Union.

Reversing the judge, a Board majority (Chairman Ring and Member Kaplan; Member McFerran, dissenting in part) found that a remedial bargaining order would likely be unenforceable given the lapse in time between the Respondent’s unfair labor practices and the issuance of the Board’s decision, as well as the significant turnover in the employee complement during that time period.  Accordingly, rather than engender further litigation and delay over the propriety of a bargaining order, the majority found that employees’ rights would be better served by proceeding directly to a second election.  Dissenting in part, Member McFerran would have found that a Gissel bargaining order was necessary, explaining that when egregious disregard for the law by the Respondent has made the conduct of a fair election unlikely, it is the Board’s prerogative—and, indeed, its responsibility —to issue a bargaining order.

Charges filed by General Teamsters Union Local No. 406, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.  Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on March 2, 2017.  Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Kaplan participated.


Semper Fi Plumbing and Heating, Inc. (27-CA-177225; 367 NLRB No. 98) Morrison, CO, April 5, 2019.  Errata to March 1, 2019 Decision and Order.  Errata   Amended Decision.


Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

No Unpublished R Cases Issued.

C Cases

H&M Transportation, Inc.  (22-CA-089596 and 22-CA-095095)  Jersey City, NJ, April 1, 2019.  The Board denied the Employer’s Petition to Revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum, as the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought and the Employer failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena.  Charges filed by an individual.  Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Kaplan participated.

RadNet Management Inc. d/b/a San Fernando Valley Interventional Radiology and Imaging Center  (31-CA-222587 and 31-CA-225390)  Los Angeles, CA, April 3, 2019.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Board’s Decision and Order reported at 367 NLRB No. 88 (2019), on the basis that the Respondent had not identified any material error or demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration.  Charges filed by National Union of Healthcare Workers.  Chairman Ring and Members Kaplan and Emanuel participated.

Jam Productions, Ltd., Event Productions, Inc., Standing Room Only, Inc. and Victoria Operating Co., a single employer  (13-CA-186575 and 13-RC-160240)  Chicago, IL, April 4, 2019.  On remand from the Seventh Circuit, the Board remanded the case to the Regional Director to hold a hearing on an objection filed by the Employer after an election in 2016.  The Employer had alleged that the Petitioner provided lucrative job referrals to certain employees to induce their support in the election.  The Board ordered the Regional Director to take further appropriate action, including issuing a Supplemental Decision on the objection.  Petitioner—Theatrical Stage Employees Union Local No. 2, I.A.T.S.E.  Chairman Ring and Members McFerran and Emanuel participated.


Appellate Court Decisions

No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.


Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Oncor Electric Delivery, LLC  (16-CA-212174; JD-34-19)  Dallas, TX.  Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued his decision on April 4, 2019.  Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 69.

New York Paving, Inc.  (29-CA-197798, et al.; JD-33-19)  Long Island City, NY.  Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on April 5, 2019.  Charges filed by Construction Council Local 175, Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and Highway Road and Street Construction Laborers Local Union 1010 of the District Council of Pavers and Builders, Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO.

Tecnocap LLC  (06-CA-216499; JD-35-19)  Glen Dale, WV.  Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on April 5, 2019.  Charge filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW), AFL-CIO.


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