Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 21 - April 25, 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 Board 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Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases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No Unpublished R Cases Issued.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No Unpublished C Cases Issued.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

Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corp. and Google, LLC, as joint employers, Board No. 16-CA-326027 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 9) (D.C. Cir. Apr. 22, 2025)

In a published opinion that issued in this test-of-certification case, the D.C. Circuit dismissed as moot two petitions for review and the Board’s cross-application for enforcement, and vacated the Board’s order.  In the underlying representation proceeding, the regional director found that Google LLC Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corp Google, and Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corp., were joint employers of employees on Google’s YouTube Music Content Operations project in Austin, Texas.  After the Regional Director issued a decision finding joint-employer status, the Employers filed Requests for Review, which were denied by the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty). 

In spring 2023, the employees voted 41-0 for representation by Alphabet Workers Union-Communication Workers of America Local 9009, and the Regional Director certified the Union as their collective-bargaining representative.  After the Employers refused to bargain, the Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment and found the bargaining violations.  The Board also severed and retained for further consideration the issue of whether to order Google and Cognizant to make employees whole for the lost opportunity to bargain, and declined to order additional remedies requested by Local 9009. Subsequently, the Employers filed a petition for review of the joint-employer finding, the Union filed a petition for review of the Board’s denial of additional remedies, and the Board filed a cross-application for enforcement.

On review, although no party raised the issue, the Court exercised “its independent obligation to ensure that appeals before us are not moot,” and determined it had no jurisdiction to reach the merits of the petitions and cross-application.  The Court explained that the merits issues were moot because “the contract under which the bargaining unit employees provided services to Google expired a month” after the Board’s decision, so there was no “case or controversy” over which it had jurisdiction.  The Court also held that no exception to the mootness doctrine was applicable.  On the Union’s petition, the Court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in issuing its customary remedies, and found the Union’s other claims were either moot or not properly before the court. 

The Court’s opinion is here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

OS-DB-JV-2, LLC (12-CA-339997; JD-34-25) San Juan, Puerto Rico.  Administrative Law Judge Michael P. Silverstein issued his decision on April 23, 2025.  Charge filed by Sindicato Puertorriqueño de Trabajadores y Trabajadoras, Local 1996, Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

***

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