Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 27 - May 1, 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

Aqua-Chem, Inc.  (10-CA-345660; 374 NLRB No. 102)  Knoxville, TN, April 27, 2026. 

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 7 of the Act  by removing signs from a public right-of-way adjacent to its facility that the Union placed during an organizing campaign.  The Decision and Order directs the Respondent to return the signs and sign holders to the Union or reimburse the Union for them. 

Charge filed by the Tennessee Pipe Trades Association.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.     

***

South Sound Inpatient Physicians, PLLC, and Joint Employer PeaceHealth  (19-RC-338479; 374 NLRB No. 101)  Bellingham, WA, April 30, 2026.

The Board granted the Employers’ respective Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election (in which he found that the Petitioner had established that PeaceHealth was a joint employer of Sound’s hospitalists based on PeaceHealth’s direct and immediate control over Sound’s hospitalists’ hiring, supervision, wages, and benefits), reversed the Regional Director’s finding that PeaceHealth was a joint employer of Sound’s hospitalists, and remanded the case to the Regional Director for further appropriate action consistent with the Board’s Decision and Order. 

With respect to hiring, the Board found that the evidence upon which the Regional Director relied—PeaceHealth’s management’s participation in a hospitalist’s interview and the provision within the hospitalists’ employment contracts with Sound requiring credentialing at the PeaceHealth hospital(s) where the hospitalist performed work as a precondition of employment with Sound—did not satisfy Section 103.40(c)(4)’s requirements because the 2020 Final Joint Employer Rule made clear that a putative joint employer’s mere participation in an interview was insufficient to establish direct and immediate control over hiring and the Petitioner had not established that PeaceHealth itself established the requirements for credentialing of Sound’s hospitalists or that any credentialing requirements attributable to PeaceHealth extended beyond setting minimum hiring standards.

With respect to supervision, the Board concluded that the evidence upon which the Regional Director relied (i.e., alleged requirements of specific charting practices, completion of certain training, and committee participation, as well as the average number of patients cared for per shift) was insufficient to establish direct and immediate control over supervision under Section 103.40(c)(7), because the Petitioner did not establish that PeaceHealth’s limited involvement in those aspects of the hospitalists’ work extended beyond “telling another employer’s employees what work to perform . . . but not how to perform it.”

As to wages, the Board found that the Regional Director erred in finding that the Petitioner met its burden because the evidence that the Regional Director relied upon—that Sound gave no wage increases to its hospitalists during the duration of its contracts with PeaceHealth but gave wage increases when the two current contracts were signed, that Sound repeatedly indicated to its hospitalists that it could grant no wage or salary increased until PeaceHealth agreed to, and signed, the current contracts, and that Sound did not pay hospitalists quality metric payments until receiving quality payments from PeaceHealth—did not establish direct and immediate control over wages, because the evidence showed only that the financial terms of Sound’s contracts with PeaceHealth may impose some restraint on Sound’s choices about what to pay its employees as a matter of economic reality (which is a feature common to any company-to-company relationship) and does not, without more, establish that PeaceHealth possesses or exercises the kind of control required under Section 103.40(c)(1).         

Finally, with respect to benefits, the Board found that the Regional Director erred in finding that, under Section 103.40(c)(2), PeaceHealth actually determined the malpractice insurance benefits that Sound provides for its hospitalists, because, contrary to the Regional Director’s find, the record shows only that PeaceHealth requires Sound to ensure that the hospitalists have malpractice insurance; there is no indication that PeaceHealth has any role in selecting the plan or carrier or dictates the level of coverage provided.

Petitioner—Union of American Physicians and Dentists.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.  

***

Garland Symphony Orchestra Association, Las Colinas Symphony Orchestra Association and Symphony Arlington, a single employer  (16-CA-264468 and 16-CA-281162; 374 NLRB No. 103)  Garland, TX, April 30, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that (1) the Respondent is subject to the Board’s jurisdiction; (2) the complaint allegations should not be deferred to arbitration; (3) the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by withdrawing recognition from the Union; and (4) the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by modifying the master labor agreement within the meaning Section 8(d) when it unilaterally altered the agreement’s minimum-wage provisions and inserted an extremely broad exigent-circumstances clause.  

With respect to the midterm-modification violation, the Board rejected the Respondent’s claim that the contract was not “for a fixed period” within the meaning of Section 8(d), explaining that at all relevant times the parties were in agreement that the contract was effective through August 31, 2021, and expired on that date.  A Board majority (Members Prouty and Mayer) additionally concluded that the Respondent would have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) within the meaning of Section 8(d) even if the collective-bargaining agreement was of indefinite duration, and that even assuming the Respondent were correct that it could implement its proposed changes after bargaining to good-faith impasse, the Respondent would have nevertheless violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) because the parties were not at good-faith impasse when the Respondent unilaterally imposed its proposals.  Chairman Murphy found it unnecessary to join his colleagues in those conclusions. 

The Board reversed the judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and 8(d) by unilaterally modifying contractual provisions concerning the election of the players committee (the Union’s on-site representative) because those provisions concerned a non-mandatory subject of bargaining.  The Board also reversed the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by dealing directly with employees, explaining that the violation found by the judge varied significantly from the direct-dealing allegation included in the complaint.

Charges filed by Dallas-Fort Worth Professional Musicians Association, Local 72-147, American Federation of Musicians.  Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued his decision on July 21, 2022.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

                                                                                                          ***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

SWCA, Inc. d/b/a SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City, UT   (27-RC-321091)  Salt Lake City, UT, April 27, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Regarding the Acting Regional Director’s conclusion that the Employer did not establish that Staff Archaeologists and Assistant Staff Archaeologists possess the authority to assign within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, the Board found that even assuming these putative supervisors assigned significant overall duties within the meaning of Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006), the Employer has not raised a substantial issue with respect to the Acting Regional Director’s finding that it has not established that such assignments are made using independent judgment.  The Board found that that the Employer had not sufficiently raised its argument that the Employer’s Cultural Resource Technicians (CRTs) should be excluded as seasonal and that therefore it was not properly before the Board under Section 102.67(e) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.  The Board stated that were it to reach the merits of the Employer’s seasonal employee argument, it would find non-fulltime CRTs to be appropriately included in the unit.  Petitioner—International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 222.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

OQ Chemicals Corporation  (16-RC-354942)  Bay City, TX, April 27, 2026. A Board majority granted the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election solely with respect to whether the Employer’s Work Group Leads are statutory supervisors on the basis of responsible direction; the Board denied review in all other respects. Member Prouty would have denied the request for review in its entirety. Petitioner—International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), Local 564. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

New World Communications of Detroit, Inc. d/b/a Fox Television Stations, LLC (WJBK-TV)  (07-RC-318095)  Southfield, MI,  April 28, 2026.  The Board granted the Petitioner’s Request for Review, but affirmed the Regional Director’s dismissal of the petition solely on the basis that there is insufficient evidence on this record to conclude that the petitioned-for voting group shares a community of interest with the existing unit sufficient to warrant a self-determination election.  Based on the entirety of the specific circumstances presented in this case, the Board further found it appropriate to direct that the Regional Director’s Decision and Order will not have preclusive effect on the Regional Director, the Board, or the parties in the event a new petition is filed.  The Board also found that it need not pass on the Employer’s Request for Review (or the Petitioner’s opposition thereto) in light of its disposition of the Petitioner’s Request for Review. Petitioner—National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians—Communications Workers of America (NABET-CWA), AFL-CIO.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Como Health LLC d/b/a 3Fifteen Primo Cannabis  (14-RC-365779)  Valley Park, MO, April 28, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  In denying review, the Board noted that, contrary to the Regional Director, it did not rely on Magic Beans, LLC, 352 NLRB 872 (2008), which was a two-member Board decision.  Petitioner—United Food & Commercial Workers Local 655.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Atlantic Recovery Services  (04-RC-367692)  Morrisville, PA, April 29, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of a Regional Director’s direction of election for a petitioned-for unit of commercial drivers at an industrial cleaning company.  The Regional Director, applying American Steel Construction, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 23 (2022), rejected the Employer’s argument that the smallest appropriate unit included technician employees.  The Board denied the request for review of that decision while clarifying that the petitioned-for unit was readily identifiable.  Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer observed that they did not participate in American Steel, express no view on whether it was correctly decided, and apply it for institutional reasons.  Petitioner—Operating Engineers, Local 542.   Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

C Cases

American Postal Workers - Union 238 Kansas Kaw Valley Area Local (United States Postal Service)  (14-CB-332603)  Mission, KS, April 27, 2026.  No exceptions having been filed to the March 20, 2026 decision of Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl’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.  Charge filed by an individual.

                                                                                                       ***

Appellate Court Decisions

Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC, Board Case 16-CA-103387 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 80) (D.C. Cir. April 28, 2026).

In a published opinion, the D.C. Circuit denied enforcement of the Board’s supplemental order that issued against this electric-utility company based in the Dallas, Texas area, after the case was remanded from the D.C. Circuit in an earlier review proceeding. 

In its prior decision (364 NLRB No. 58), the Board (Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and McFerran) found, in relevant part, that Oncor discharged an employee in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act after he testified before a Texas state committee on issues related to employee safety and job duties, which the Board found protected by Section 7 of the Act.  Specifically, the employee testified that Oncor’s installation of new smart meters at residential properties was the subject of customer complaints about the meters burning up and causing damage to their homes.  Addressing Oncor’s defense, the Board found that Oncor failed to show that the testimony was either maliciously untrue or so disloyal as to cause the employee to lose the Act’s protection under NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1229 (Jefferson Standard), 346 U.S. 464 (1953) (to retain protection, the prejudicial third-party communication must be (1) “related to an ongoing labor dispute,” and (2) not “so disloyal, reckless or maliciously untrue as to lose the Act’s protection”). 

In the earlier review proceeding, the Court affirmed the Board’s findings under the second requirement of the Jefferson Standard test that the employee’s testimony was not reckless, maliciously false, or disloyally disparaging.  The Court explained, however, that it was necessary to remand the case to the Board for further consideration because “the Board’s decision essentially skipped discussion of the first requirement”—that the third-party communication “indicate that it is related to an ongoing labor dispute.”  See Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. LLC v. NLRB, 887 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

On remand, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty, Member Kaplan dissenting in part) again concluded that Oncor violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by discharging the employee for testifying before the Texas state committee.  Addressing the Court’s instruction concerning the “labor-dispute” requirement of Jefferson Standard, the Board “described the conditions under which a reference to an employer practice . . . could ‘indicate’ a link to a labor dispute,” explaining that its inquiry examines the communication “in its entirety and in context.”  The Board then found that the employee’s testimony sufficiently “indicate[d] a link to a labor dispute” by identifying himself as a union representative, discussing his contacts with another union local about its experience with burning smart meters, and detailing how smart meters affected working conditions—namely, by resulting in an increase in trouble tickets related to burning smart meters and dealing with more disgruntled customers. 

Back on review, the Court held that the Board had misapplied the first step of the Jefferson Standard test.  The Court noted that the employee’s testimony “did not explicitly refer to a labor dispute,” “did not discuss the stalled negotiations about extending the Union’s collective bargaining agreement,” and did not mention “any other ongoing dispute between the Union and Oncor, much less connect such a dispute to the problems with smart meters.”  Therefore, the Court concluded that because nothing in the employee’s testimony communicated a connection to an ongoing labor dispute, his discharge was “for cause rather than for protected speech,” and did not constitute an unfair labor practice.

The Court’s opinion is here.

Universal Protection Services, LLC d/b/a Allied Universal Security Services, Board No. 12-CA-305972 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 38) (11th Cir. May 1, 2026).

In an unpublished opinion that issued in this test-of-certification case, the Eleventh Circuit enforced the Board’s bargaining order against this provider of security services to Florida Power and Light Company at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant in Florida City, Florida, where a unit of its lieutenants voted 18 to 0 in an August 2022 election to be represented by International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America.  In doing so, the Court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in holding that Allied failed to carry its burden of proving its claim that the lieutenants are statutory supervisors excluded from the Act’s protection. 

In the underlying representation case, after the Union filed a petition seeking to represent the lieutenants, Allied argued that they were supervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act because they use independent judgment when issuing disciplinary forms to the security officers working at the facility.  After a hearing was held by a Hearing Officer, the Regional Director issued a decision finding that Allied failed to present sufficient evidence in support of its supervisory claim, and directed that an election be held.  Specifically, the Regional Director found that disciplinary forms prepared by the lieutenants typically cover only obvious procedural lapses, and that the discipline issued was constrained by Allied’s detailed and prescriptive disciplinary policies, as well as the involvement of higher-level officials.  After the election, Allied filed objections reasserting its claim of supervisory status, which the Regional Director overruled because they sought review of matters already decided before the election.  Allied then filed a Request for Review, which was denied by the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox), and subsequently refused to bargain in order to seek court review.

On review, the Court first turned to Allied’s contention that the structure of the Board’s representation proceeding violated its due-process right for an opportunity to be heard because the Hearing Officer who presided over the hearing was not the Regional Director who issued the representation-case decision.  Rejecting that contention, the Court cited the longstanding precedent of NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Tel. Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938) (upholding Board process when parties had the chance to define their arguments and suffered no detriment), and NLRB v. Duval Jewelry Co. of Miami, 357 U.S. 1, 7 (1958) (approving the delegation of preliminary rulings to hearing officers).  Further, the Court explained that “[b]oth Allied Universal and the Union had the opportunity to develop the factual record and to cross-examine witnesses at the representation hearing, and to challenge the regional director’s decision both to the Board and in this Court.  That process was sufficient to allow both sides to be heard.”

Among other preliminary matters, the Court also dispensed with two challenges that Allied raised with regard to the standard of review. First, the Court rejected Allied’s argument that the non-deferential standard of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), should be applied to review the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings.  The Court explained that such an argument “misconstrues the basis for our standard of review,” citing the substantial-evidence standard specified in Section 10(e) of the Act. The Court thus held that Loper Bright “does not modify the standard of review we apply to the Board’s findings of fact,” and acknowledged that the question of supervisory authority is a question of fact.  Second, the Court rejected Allied’s argument that after Loper Bright the burden of proof on the issue of supervisory status should be questioned.  Citing NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001), in-circuit precedent, and Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006), the Court explained that “we have accepted those tests in past decisions, and ‘the holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful . . . are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite [Loper Bright’s] change in interpretive methodology,’” quoting Loper Bright, 603 U.S. at 412. 

Turning to the merits, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that Allied failed to carry its burden of proving that the lieutenants exercised independent judgment in issuing disciplinary forms to the security officers.  In doing so, the Court cited the very same reasons stated by the Board.  Therefore, the Court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in overruling Allied’s election objections and certifying the Union. 

The Court’s opinion is here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, its Territories and Canada, AFL–CIO, Local 127  (16-CB-335527; JD(SF)-09–26) Dallas, TX.  Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued his decision on April 28, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual.

A-V Services, Inc.  (22-CA-332620 and 22-RC-320562; JD-25-26) Fairfield, NJ.  Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito issued her decision on April 30, 2026.  Charge filed by International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 59. 

Riverwood Center, LLC  (12-RM-330540 and 1 2-CA-334715; JD–27–26) Jacksonville, FL.   Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on April 30, 2026.  Charge filed by The Independent Association of Public and Private Employees. 

Nielsen Dental, PC  (19-CA-351178; JD(SF)–10–26) Helena, MT.  Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on May 1, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual. 

                                                                                                       ***

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