Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 13 - 17, 2026

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

The Market by Jennifer’s LLC  (28-CA-236704; 374 NLRB No. 95)  Phoenix, AZ, April 14, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the compliance specification.  The Board ordered the Respondent to make the discriminatee whole by paying her the amounts set forth in the compliance specification and attached exhibits, including backpay and reimbursement for interim expenses and adverse tax consequences.

Charge filed by an individual.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Village Plumbing & Heating NY Inc.  (29-CA-289082 and 29-CA-292397; 374 NLRB No. 96)  Bohemia, NY, April 15, 2026.

The Board (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer; Member Prouty, dissenting) denied the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment for noncompliance with the provisions of the parties’ informal settlement agreement.  The Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer) found that there was a factual dispute regarding whether the Respondent complied with the terms of the settlement agreement that would be best resolved at a hearing. Dissenting, Member Prouty would have granted the motion as there is no genuine issue of fact about whether the Respondent breached the settlement agreement by its failure to rehire or instate the discriminatees.

Charges filed by New York State Pipe Trades Association.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Dold Foods, LLC  (14-RC-353703; 374 NLRB No. 97)  St. Louis, MO, April 16, 2026.

The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Objections, Order Approving Withdrawal of Objection, and Order Setting Aside and Directing Rerun Election, as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer) declined to second-guess the Regional Director’s determination that, for a workforce with a substantial number of employees who do not speak English, the undisputed errors in the first election—which included using English ballots, no translators, and translated notices of election containing errors in both the Spanish and Swahili sample ballots—destroyed the laboratory conditions necessary for the election to determine the uninhibited desires of the employees. The majority rejected arguments that the Board’s cases involving translation issues require evidence of actual confusion, as those cases did not involve the errors the Regional Director found in this case, nor did they include the same substantial number of void ballots. Dissenting, Member Prouty would have granted review and reversed the Regional Director’s order setting aside the first election and ordering a rerun election, finding that the Regional Director relied on only the “potential” or “likelihood” that voters were confused by the translation issues rather than the “actual confusion” that was present in the Board’s past relevant cases. Member Prouty rejected the Board majority’s attempt to distinguish those cases, noting the “actual confusion” standard has been applied in a variety of cases involving a diverse array of translation issues. He further found that the Employer’s offer of proof in support of its objections was too vague and conclusory, and the Regional Director therefore erred in finding that it was sufficient to warrant setting aside the election.

Petitioner—United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 2. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

***

RRI West Management, LLC, an affiliate of the Westmont Hospitality Group, d/b/a Red Roof Plus San Antonio Downtown-Riverwalk  (16-CA-278283; 374 NLRB No. 98)  San Antonio, TX, April 17, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by unlawfully discharging an employee and by directing that employee to cease counseling other employees regarding essential terms and conditions of employment.  The Board also rejected the Respondent’s argument that the backpay award should exclude state unemployment payments. 

Charge filed by an individual.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on May 13, 2022.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Blue Ribbon Plumbing, Inc. d/b/a Workman & Sons Plumbing  (09-RC-301758)  Ashland, KY, April 13, 2026.  The Board (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer; Member Prouty, dissenting) granted the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Direction of Second Election.  In 2022, a representation election was held in which 12 employees voted against representation by the Petitioner and none voted in favor of representation.  On June 12, 2025, the Regional Director ordered a second election based on two objections filed by the Union, one involving the interrogation of three employees about union activity and a second involving wage increases granted to three employees during the critical period.  The Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer) granted review and reversed the decision.  The majority observed that where the margin of the election exceeds the number of employees affected by the misconduct, the Board has generally declined to set aside the election unless the misconduct was disseminated to other voters.  The Regional Director inferred that news of the wage increases had been disseminated to the unit based on testimony that employees generally discussed wages.  However, the Board found that this was an insufficient basis to infer dissemination.  Accordingly, even assuming without deciding that the Employer engaged in misconduct, it did not impact a determinative number of voters. Dissenting, Member Prouty disagreed that the Regional Director’s finding that the misconduct had a tendency to interfere with the election was clearly erroneous or a departure from Board precedent. Petitioner—Plumbers and Steamfitters, Local Union 248.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Renal Treatment Centers - California, Inc. d/b/a DaVita Elk Grove Dialysis Center (20-RC-337152)  Elk Grove, CA, April 17, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision on Challenged Ballots and Order Directing the Opening and Counting of Certain Challenged Ballots as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers – West. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

C Cases

Michael Cetta, Inc. d/b/a Sparks Restaurant  (02-CA-142626 and 02-CA-144852)  New York, NY, April 13, 2026.  The Board denied the Respondent’s and the General Counsel’s Motions for Reconsideration of the Board’s Decision and Order, reported at 373 NLRB No. 129 (2024).  The Board found that neither the Respondent nor the General Counsel identified any material error or demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. Concurring, Member Prouty wrote separately in order to highlight the lack of merit in the contentions raised in the motions.  Charges filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 342. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Hospital Menonita Ponce, Inc., an affiliate of Sistema de Salud Menonita  (12-CA-308692, et al.)  Ponce, PR, April 17, 2026.  The Board granted the Respondent’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas’s order denying its motion to hold the February 17, 2026 hearing in abeyance.  On the merits, the Board denied the appeal.  The Board found that the Respondent failed to establish that the judge abused his discretion in denying the Respondent’s request to hold the hearing in abeyance.  Charges filed by Unidad Laboral de Enfermeras(os) y Empleados de la Salud.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc., Board No. 07-CA-285321 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 149) (6th Cir. Apr. 13, 2026)

In a published opinion, the Sixth Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against this highway construction contractor with several facilities in Michigan where its operating engineers are represented by Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers. Recently, the Sixth Circuit enforced another Board order that issued to remedy Rieth-Riley’s violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)  in 2018 and 2020 when it demanded that the Union engage in multiemployer bargaining, locked out employees in furtherance of that unlawful demand, and unilaterally changed terms and conditions of employment, which contributed to an unfair-labor-practice strike.  See Rieth-Riley Constr. Co., Inc. v. NLRB, __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 948312 (Apr. 8, 2026), enforcing 374 NLRB No. 13 (2024).  Prior to that case, the Sixth Circuit had enforced another Board decision in which Rieth-Riley was found to unlawfully refuse to provide the Union with requested information in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1).  See Rieth-Riley Constr. Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 114 F.4th 519 (6th Cir. 2024), enforcing 372 NLRB No. 142 (2023).  Thus, the present case represents the third chapter in this longstanding labor dispute to have reached the Court, which again upheld the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings in full. 

In this case, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty) found that Rieth-Riley violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally granting wage increases to employees in 2021 and 2022, failing to provide the Union with additional relevant requested information, and refusing to bargain with, and then withdrawing recognition from, the Union. Among other defenses that the Board found meritless, the Board rejected Rieth-Riley’s contention that it justifiably refused to bargain in order to contest the dismissal of decertification petitions, which Rieth-Riley argued was an action equivalent to a technical refusal to bargain for the purposes of seeking court review of a Board certification of representative.  Those decertification petitions were dismissed in yet another Board proceeding after they were found to be tainted by Rieth-Riley’s prior unlawful lockout and unilateral changes to wages in 2018 and 2020.  See Rieth-Riley Constr. Co., Inc., 371 NLRB No. 109 (2022).

On review, the Court held that the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with precedent.  On the wage violations, the Court rejected Rieth-Riley’s argument that the Union had waived bargaining because the record evidence did not show that the Union had received clear and unequivocal notice of the increases.  In upholding the Board’s finding that Rieth-Riley unlawfully withdrew recognition, the Court held that “taken together “ its conduct “demonstrated an intent to completely sever its relationship with the Union,” as evidenced by “its unilateral wage increases over multiple years, its [] letter to the Union explicitly refusing to bargain, and its failure to provide requested information to the Union.” 

The Court also rejected Rieth-Riley’s contention that its refusal to bargain was justified to seek judicial review of the dismissal of the decertification petitions.  The Court explained that for the application of the “technical-refusal-to-bargain doctrine,” as recognized in Boire v. Greyhound Corp., 376 U.S. 473 (1964), “there must be, at the very least, a ‘bargaining unit determination’ made by the Board, such that the decision creates, clarifies, or eliminates a bargaining obligation.”  The Court therefore concluded that the Act “does not grant us jurisdiction—not even indirectly under § 9(d)—to provide the judicial review Rieth-Riley seeks.” Lastly, the Court held that under Section 10(e) of the Act, it had no jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision to issue an affirmative bargaining order because the issue had not been raised to the Board. Accordingly, the Court granted the Board’s order in full. 

The Court’s decision 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.