Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 20 - 24, 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

SAAS Hotels NJ LLC d/b/a La Quinta Inn & Suites Fairfield and Rollo Hospitality LLC d/b/a Ramada by Wyndham, Alter Egos  (22-CA-315658 and 22-CA-323960; 374 NLRB No. 99)  Fairfield, NJ, April 22, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent Rollo’s failure to file an answer to the complaint.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms and conditions of employment of its employees, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization and Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees.  However, because the General Counsel failed to prove effective service to Respondent SAAS Hotels NJ LLC, d/b/a La Quinta Inn & Suites Fairfield, the Board denied the motion without prejudice.

Charges filed by Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, AFL-CIO.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

BeLeaf Medical, LLC  (14-RC-325871, 374 NLRB No. 100) St. Louis, MO, April 23, 2026.

The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  The Board noted its agreement with the Regional Director that the disputed “Post Harvest” classifications did not qualify as “agricultural” under the Fair Labor Standards Act definition which the Board utilizes in determining the exclusion of agricultural laborers under Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.  Member Mayer concurred and stated that the Board should continue its case-by-case approach in distinguishing between excluded agricultural laborers and included statutory employees, especially in “emerging or rapidly industries.” 

Petitioner—United Food & Commercial Workers Local 655. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Starbucks Corporation  (14-RD-327273)  Nichols Hills, OK, April 21, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s and Petitioner’s Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying Reinstatement of Petition as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—an individual. Union—Chicago & Midwest Regional Joint Board, Workers United/SEIU aka Starbucks Workers United. Chairman Murphy and Members Mayer and Prouty participated.

Starbucks Corporation  (03-RD-316974)  Buffalo, NY, April 21, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s, Petitioner’s, and Union’s Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying Reinstatement of Petition as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—an individual. Union—Workers United. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Allied New York Services, Inc.  (29-RM-337856)  New York, NY, April 22, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  In denying review, the Board noted that the Employer inappropriately filed a request for review that exceeded the applicable page limits and found that the Employer’s constitutional claims did not warrant review because the Employer provided no evidence that it had suffered harm arising from the alleged constitutional violations.  Member Mayer agreed to deny review but would be willing to consider whether the Board should refer a similar future case to the National Mediation Board to confirm that its position from Swissport Cargo Services, LP, 52 NMB 25 (2024) remains unchanged.  Employer/Petitioner—Allied New York Services, Inc.  Union—Local 553, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Starbucks Corporation  (27-RD-322381) Cottonwood Heights, UT, April 22, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s and Petitioner’s Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying Reinstatement of Petition as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—an individual. Union—Chicago & Midwest Regional Joint Board, Workers United/SEIU aka Starbucks Workers United. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Grindr LLC  (31-RC-322155)  Los Angeles, CA, April 22, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election (in which the Regional Director concluded that the petitioned-for product managers are not supervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act), finding that it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—Communications Workers of America, District 9, AFL-CIO. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Southwest Electric Power Company (15-UC-309858)  Shreveport, LA, April 23, 2026. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 329 and 738.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Dreamclinic Incorporated   (19-RC-364048)  Seattle, WA, April 23, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying the Employer’s Motion to Dismiss as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  The Board also denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Objections and Certification of Representative, finding that it raised no substantial issues warranting review because the Employer did not allege any facts that would bring this case within the limited exception to the rule that an employer is estopped from relying on its own failure to comply with the voter list requirements as a basis for setting aside and election.  Further, neither the Employer nor the individual amicus alleged that any voters took reasonable steps to vote and were unable to do so, nor did they show that a determinative number of employees did not have an adequate opportunity to vote due to the mechanics of the election.  Petitioner—United Food and Commercial Workers Local 3000.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Peak Vista Community Health Centers  (27-RC-349077)  Denver, CO, April 23, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election (in which the Regional Director concluded that the petitioned-for unit of medical providers is appropriate and need not include the dental providers that the Employer contended must be included), finding that it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—Union of American Physicians & Dentists Affiliated American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc.  (32-RC-356381)  Stockton, CA, April 23, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review and denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order Directing Opening ad Counting Challenged ballots as moot. In denying review, the Board noted that the Regional Director incorrectly allocated one of the factors in the applicable multifactor community of interest test but still did not clearly err in the overall determination that a sufficient community of interest existed for purposes of an Armour-Globe election.  Petitioner—Teamsters Local 439.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

C Cases

Starbucks Corporation   (19-CA-325519 and 19-CA-326902)  Portland, OR, April 20, 2026. No exceptions having been filed to the February 9, 2026 decision of Administrative Law Judge John T. Giannopoulos’s finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions, and ordered the Respondent to take the action set forth in the judge’s recommended Order.  Charges filed by Workers United Labor Union International, a/w Service Employees International Union. 

Sutphen Corporation  (09-CA-366492 and 09-CA-367418)  Dublin, OH, April 20, 2026 The Board denied the Respondent’s request for Special Permission to Appeal the informal rulings purportedly made by the judge during a pre-hearing conference call which granted in part the General Counsel’s and the Union’s petitions to revoke the Respondent’s subpoena duces tecum.  The Board found that there was no need for interlocutory relief because the hearing had concluded and the record was closed but noted that its denial of permission to appeal was without prejudice to the Respondent’s right to renew its objections before the Board on exceptions, if appropriate.  Charges filed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), Local Union No. 284.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

Sutphen Corporation  (09-CA-366492 and 09-CA-367418)  Dublin, OH, April 21, 2026.  The Board denied the Respondent’s request for Special Permission to Appeal the informal rulings purportedly made by the Administrative Law Judge during a pre-hearing conference call which denied in part the Respondent’s petition to revoke the General Counsel’s subpoena duces tecum.  The Board found that there was no need for interlocutory relief because the hearing had concluded and the record was closed. The Board also denied the Respondent’s request to stay the hearing and its motion to stay its subpoena and privilege log but noted that its denials were without prejudice to the Respondent’s right to renew its objections before the Board on exceptions, if appropriate.  Charges filed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), Local Union No. 284.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

***

Appellate Court Decisions

CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific LLC, Board Case No. 28-CA-230115 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 130) (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2026)

In an unpublished opinion that issued on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, the Ninth Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against this producer and deliverer of ready-mix concrete, which operates from numerous facilities in Southern California and Southern Nevada, for unfair labor practices committed after an organizing campaign among its drivers began by International Brotherhood of Teamsters in 2017.  Cemex responded with an anti-union campaign, which accelerated after the Union obtained majority support and requested that Cemex voluntarily recognize it as the employees’ bargaining representative.  When Cemex refused, the Union filed for an election, which was held in 2019.  After the Union lost by a margin of 179 to 166, it filed objections alleging that Cemex had engaged in numerous acts of coercive conduct that required the election to be set aside.  Subsequently, the unfair-labor-practice case and the representation case were consolidated for hearing and decision. 

The Board (Chairman McFerran, Members Wilcox and Prouty; Member Kaplan, dissenting in part) found that Cemex committed dozens of unfair labor practices in the weeks before the election that warranted setting it aside.  The Board also found that, when the Union resumed organizing after the election, Cemex unlawfully retaliated by suspending and discharging a leading pro-union driver.  Presented with those facts, the Board overruled precedent and adopted a new framework governing when an employer will be found to violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to recognize and bargain with a union validly designated by a majority of its employees.  Applying that new framework, the Board concluded that Cemex had committed such a violation and that a remedial bargaining order was warranted.  The Board also found, in the alternative, that a bargaining order was warranted under NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), the established precedent applicable when a fair rerun election has been rendered unlikely.  Subsequently, Cemex filed a motion for reconsideration challenging the Board’s new framework, which the Board denied, and both Cemex and the Union filed petitions for review.

On review, as a threshold matter, the Court dispensed with Cemex’s argument that NLRB Administrative Law Judges enjoyed unconstitutional removal protections, noting that its failure to show how the removal protections “actually caused Cemex compensable harm” precluded retrospective relief, citing in-circuit precedent and Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220 (2021). Turning to the merits, the Court held that the Board’s numerous unfair-labor-practice findings were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law, and rejected Cemex’s arguments, many of which were inadequately supported challenges to the ALJ’s credibility determinations or otherwise contrary to the record evidence. Regarding the Board’s holding that the election be set aside, the Court held that Cemex had not shown that the Board had abused its discretion in making that determination because Cemex’s arguments were based solely on its challenges to the Board’s underlying unfair-labor-practice findings, which the Court had already rejected. 

Turning to the Gissel bargaining order, the Court noted that it was uncontested that the Union had obtained majority status in November 2018 when it requested bargaining, and agreed with the Board’s reasoning that the bargaining order was warranted on the facts of the case. Specifically, the Court agreed that Cemex had engaged in “pervasive coercive misconduct,” which included its unlawful discharge of a pro-union employee, multiple threats of job loss and plant closure, and numerous other unfair labor practices,” that “were at least as severe as those found warranting a bargaining order in the consolidated cases before the [Supreme] Court in Gissel.”  The Court also noted that Cemex committed violations that fell in “at least three categories of conduct (threats of plant closure, threats of job loss, and discipline and discharge of a prominent union supporter) that the Board and courts have recognized as ‘hallmark’ violations.” 

The Court then explained that having affirmed the bargaining order under Gissel, it did not need to “reach the parties’ dispute over the retroactive application of the new standard for a bargaining order adopted by the Board.”  However, while agreeing with the panel majority that it was unnecessary to reach the issue, one dissenting judge questioned the promulgation of the Board’s new framework in support of his view that the Board’s analysis under Gissel was also flawed.

Among remaining issues, the Court summarily rejected Cemex’s challenges to the Board’s Thryv remedies on the basis of in-circuit precedent, and found no merit in the Union’s claims that the Board should have issued additional findings and remedies.

The Court’s opinion is here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Centers for Family Medicine, GP and Healthcare Partners Medical Group, P.C.  (21-CA-333729 and 21-CA-370914; JD(SF)–06–26) Los Alamitos, CA.  Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on April 20, 2026. Charges filed by Union of American Physicians and Dentists.

ASARCO LLC  (28-CA-255235, et al.; JD(SF)-05-26) Hayden, Kearny, Sahuarita, Marana, AZ and, Amarillo, TX.  Administrative Law Judge Sharon Levinson Steckler issued her decision on April 20, 2026.  Charges filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC and other unions.

Wrightsville Firewater LLC d/b/a John Wright Restaurant  (05-CA-331875; JD–21–26) Wrightsville, PA.   Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on April 21, 2026. Charge filed by an individual.

Strive Well-Being, Inc.  (21-CA-318148, et al.; JD(SF)-07-26) Los Angeles, CA. Administrative Law Judge Brian D. Gee issued his decision on April 22, 2026. Charges  filed by Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1756.

RJ Staab Stone Company of Florida, LLC  (12–CA–334616; JD-22-26) Newberry, FL.   Administrative Law Judge Sharon Levinson Steckler issued her decision on April 22, 2026.  Charge filed by International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Local 8 Southeast, AFL-CIO. 

Solera Holdings, LLC and its subsidiary, Identifix, LLC, as Joint Employers  (16–CA–311941 and 16–CA–311959; JD-23-26) Westlake, TX.  Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter issued his decision on April 23, 2026.  Charges  filed by an individual. 

Townsend Controls & Electric LLC  (19–CA–315801; JD(SF)-08-26) Pasco, WA. Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone issued her decision on April 23, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual.

Johns Hopkins Medical Associates, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation  (05-CA-319331 and 05-CA-322175; JD–24–26) Lutherville, MD.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on April 24, 2026. Charges  filed by individuals. 

***

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