Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 6 - 10, 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

JetStream Ground Services, Inc.  (10-CA-324158; 374 NLRB No. 89)  Charlotte, NC, April 7, 2026. 

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground that the Respondent failed to raise any issues that were not, or could not have been, litigated in the underlying representation proceeding in which the Union was certified as the bargaining representative.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.  

Charge filed by Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 32BJ. Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer participated.  Member Prouty, who is recused, was a member of the panel but did not participate in the decision on the merits.

***

Century Linen & Uniform, Inc. (03-CA-283806 and 03-CA-288979; 374 NLRB No. 91)  Johnstown and Gloversville, NY, April 7, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by unlawfully assisting the decertification effort, although for a different rational than relied on by the judge, and violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by relying on that tainted decertification petition to withdraw recognition from the Union.  The Board also found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally denying or restricting Union representatives’ access to the Respondent’s facilities to meet with unit employees, on three occasions, and by unilaterally granting employees a wage increase.  The Board also found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by: (1) interrogating employees about their union activities; (2) telling employees that the Union was gone or not coming back after unlawfully withdrawing recognition from the Union; and (3) threatening an employee with retaliation if he complied with a Board subpoena to testify.  The Board also affirmed the judge’s dismissal of the allegation that the Respondent unlawfully surveilled employees, but Member Prouty would find that the Respondent unlawfully created the impression of surveillance.

Charges filed by Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 368.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on January 30, 2023.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

***

International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 1526, AFL-CIO (Florida International Terminal, LLC)  (12-CB-299858 and 12-CB-320318; 374 NLRB No. 87)  Fort Lauderdale, FL, April 7, 2026.

In the absence of exceptions, the Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by threatening members for filing charges with the Board and for participating in Board proceedings, and violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and in bad faith representing a member in his seniority claim.  

Charges filed by two individuals.  Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his decision on July 17, 2024.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

International Longshoremen’s Association. Local 1694, AFL-CIO (GT USA Wilmington, LLC)  (04-CB-280810; 374 NLRB No. 90)  Wilmington, DE, April 7, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by threatening to refuse to refer a unit member, and Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by failing and refusing to refer that member for a several-month period. The Board reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of the allegation that the Respondent also violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by continuously failing and refusing to refer the unit member.

Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Susannah Merritt issued her decision on November 24, 2023. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Prime Communications, LP  (16-CA-309916; 374 NLRB No. 88)  Sugar Land, TX, April 7, 2026.

The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by issuing and maintaining severance agreements with overly broad nondisparagement and confidentiality provisions that would chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.  In affirming the judge’s findings, Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer noted that they apply McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 48 (2023), as extant precedent, and that they would be open to reconsideration of that precedent in a future appropriate proceeding.

Charge filed by an individual.  Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on June 26, 2024. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery and FPR-II, LLC d/b/a Leadpoint Business Services (32-CA-160759; 374 NLRB No. 93)  Milpitas, CA, April 8, 2026.

The Board denied Respondent Browning-Ferris’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Board’s Second Supplemental Decision and Order reported at 374 NLRB No. 46 (2026).  In the underlying test-of-certification decision, the Board had concluded that Respondent Browning-Ferris was a joint employer of certain employees of Respondent Leadpoint, and ordered both Respondents to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of those employees.  In denying the motion, the Board rejected Browning-Ferris’s contention that the Board’s Order should limit Browning-Ferris’s bargaining obligations to those employment terms that the Board found Browning-Ferris to actually control or co-control in the context of the Board’s joint-employer analysis.  The Board observed that the question of whether an entity has a duty to bargain as a joint employer is analytically prior to, and distinct from, the question of what one must bargain about if one has a duty to bargain, and that the precise scope of Browning-Ferris’s bargaining obligation was not before the Board in this proceeding.

Charge filed by Sanitary Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 350, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

American Postal Workers Union, Local 512 a/w American Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO (United States Postal Service)  (05-CB-241037; 374 NLRB No. 92)  Emmittsburg, MD, April 7, 2026. 

The Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer) reversed the Administrative Law Judge and found that the Charging Party’s unfair labor practice charge against the Respondent Union was timely filed and not time-barred by Section 10(b). They found that the 6-month 10(b) period was tolled because the Charging Party’s union representative repeatedly misled her about having grieved her emergency placement and termination and that he failed to provide her information about her grievances in violation of the Respondent’s duty of fair representation under Section 8(b)(1)(A). They ordered the Respondent to process her grievances through arbitration, and barring that, to make her whole if the General Counsel establishes in a compliance proceeding that her grievances were meritorious.  Member Prouty dissented, agreeing with the judge that the Charging Party knew or reasonably should have known from communications with local and national union representatives and other indicators occurring more than 6 months prior to filing the charge that her union representative had not filed the grievances despite his falsehoods. 

Charge filed by an individual.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on March 6, 2023.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

***

Accenture d/b/a Accenture Flex and Google, LLC, as Joint Employers  (20-CA-353557; 374 NLRB No. 86)  Mountain View, CA, April 8, 2026.

The Board granted the Acting General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Google, LLC in this test-of-certification case. The Board found that Google, LLC failed to raise any issues that were not, or could not have been, litigated in the underlying representation proceeding in which the Union was certified as the bargaining representative and that Google, LLC violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union. 

Charge filed by Alphabet Workers Union-Communications Workers of America, Local 9009.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

                                                                                           ***

Korean Resource Center, Inc. (31–CA–282645 and 31-CA-287920; 374 NLRB No. 94)  Los Angeles, CA, April 9, 2026.

The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of an allegation that the Respondent unlawfully discharged an employee for emailing a third party to register complaints that a mural that was being planned by the Respondent and the third party was racially and culturally offensive.  The Board observed that no party excepted to the judge’s finding that the employee’s email was a logical outgrowth of prior concerted activity.  Nevertheless, the Board agreed with the judge that the employee’s email was not for mutual aid and protection.

Charges filed by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 947.  Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone issued her decision on June 30, 2023. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.   

                                                                                            ***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

unWired Broadband, Inc.  (32-RC-364505)  Fresno, CA, April 6, 2026. The Board denied the Employer's Request for Review of the Regional Director's letter blocking the petition as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—Communication Workers of America.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

High Country News  (27-RC-354421)  Denver, CO, April 6, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election (finding that the petitioned-for unit is appropriate, and the election-year bar of Section 9(c)(3) does not apply), as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—Denver Newspaper Guild – CWA Local 37074, AFL-CIO.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Burgerville LLC  (19-RD-367705)  Portland, OR April 6, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Objections and Certification of Results as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  The Regional Director properly overruled the objections as untimely because the Employer did not E-file them according to the instructions on the Agency Web site and only emailed its objections within the deadline set forth in Section 102.69(a)(8) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.  Member Mayer concurred with his colleagues that the Regional Director correctly applied the Board’s Rules and Regulations, but he noted that no prejudice or delay resulted from the successful E-filing the following day and that the Board’s established policy is to favor determinations on the merits.  He would be open to considering whether the Board should amend its Rules to provide Regional Directors with discretion to accept late E-filed objections in comparable circumstances.  Petitioner— an individual.  Union—Industrial Workers of the World – Portland  Chapter d/b/a Burgerville Workers Union.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Puerto Rico Energy, LLC  (12-RD-346011)  San Juan, PR, April 9, 2026. A Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Prouty) denied the Petitioner's Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying Motion Requesting Rescission of Approval of Withdrawal Request as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Dissenting, Member Mayer would have granted the Request for Review because Petitioner immediately disputed that he had agreed to dismissal, retained counsel, and sought the petition’s reinstatement. Petitioner—an individual.  Union—Congreso de Uniones Industriales de Puerto Rico.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

Memphis Symphony Orchestra  (15-RC-366955)  Memphis, TN, April 9, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying Employer’s Request to Block as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board noted that the Regional Director had acted in accordance with Section 103.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations which sets out the Board’s blocking charge policy.   Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer stated that for institutional reasons they were applying extant law in denying the request for review and express no opinion as to whether the policy was correctly determined.  Petitioner—International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 69.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Envision Hospice of Washington, LLC  (19-RD-330954)  Seattle, WA, April 9, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order Dismissing Petition as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  The Board stated that the Regional Director properly engaged in a “merit-determination dismissal” under the Board’s decision in Reith-Riley Construction Co., 371 NLRB No. 109 (2022).  Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer noted that they were applying Reith-Riley Construction Co., supra, for institutional reasons for the purposes of deciding the case and express no view as to whether the case was properly decided. Petitioner—an individual.  Union—International Association of Machinists, District 751.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Kuraray America, Inc.  (16-RC-350268)  La Porte, TX, April 9, 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. Petitioner—Local 900C of the International Chemical Workers Union Council of the United Food & Commercial Workers Union, AFL-CIO, CLC. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

C Cases

Texas Institute of Cardiology  (16-CA-370118)  McKinney, TX, April 8, 2026.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding  that the Respondent failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Charge filed by an individual.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

USC Care Medical Group, Inc., Keck Medicine of USC  (31–CA–307034 and 31–RC–299354)  Pasadena, CA, April 9, 2026.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of the Board’s Decision and Order, reported at 374 NLRB No. 2 (2024).  The Board found that the Respondent had not identified any material error or demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration.  Charge filed by National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW). Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc., Board No. 07-CA-234085 (reported at 374 NLRB No. 13) (6th Cir. Apr. 8, 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. In doing so, the Court upheld the findings by the Board (Chairman McFerran, Members Kaplan and Prouty; Member Kaplan, dissenting in part) that Rieth-Riley violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by demanding that the Union engage in multiemployer bargaining, by locking out employees in furtherance of that unlawful demand, and by unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment.  The Board also found that Rieth-Riley’s unfair labor practices contributed to the Union’s decision to call a strike, which the Board therefore held was an unfair-labor-practice strike.

For decades, the Union engaged in collective bargaining with the Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association, Inc., a multiemployer bargaining association to which Rieth-Riley is a member. Most recently, the Union and the Association were parties to a five-year multiemployer contract set to expire in May 2018.  Prior to negotiations for a new contract, the Union withdrew from multiemployer bargaining, while Rieth-Riley refused to bargain on an individual basis.  In September 2018, Rieth-Riley instituted a lockout and conditioned its end on the Union accepting a contract with the Association.  Later, consistent with an agreement to end the lockout, the parties met for 10 bargaining sessions and reached tentative agreements on some issues, but a number of issues remained sticking points as of the summer of 2019, when the Union called an unfair-labor-practice strike.  Thereafter, Rieth-Riley made unilateral changes to wages and stopped transmitting benefit-fund contributions, which it later began clawing back from employee paychecks. 

On review, the Court held the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with Board and court precedent.  First, the Court agreed with the Board’s determination that the Union timely withdrew from multiemployer bargaining, holding that the Board properly construed and applied the longstanding principles of Retail Associates, Inc., 120 NLRB 388 (1958).  Then, turning to the unfair-labor-practice findings, the Court summarily held that because the Union timely withdrew from the multiemployer bargaining, Rieth-Riley therefore violated the Act when it (1) insisted on multiemployer bargaining after the termination of the multiemployer agreement, (2) increased wages for bargaining-unit employees, and (3) locked out members of the bargaining unit in September 2018. 

Regarding Rieth-Riley’s conduct in unilaterally clawing back benefit-fund contributions from employee paychecks, the Court rejected Rieth-Riley’s claim that its conduct should be excused because of an economic exigency.  In doing so, the Court quoted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that “[t]he length of time that elapsed before [Rieth-Riley] acted contradicts the claim that time was of the essence and an economic exigency existed.”  The Court also found no merit to Rieth-Riley’s challenges to the Board’s finding that it unlawfully increased employee wages in 2020 without bargaining with the Union, or Rieth-Riley’s claims that the Board incorrectly determined that the 2019 strike was an unfair-labor-practice strike. 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. 

The Court’s decision is here. 

                                                                                          ***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

University of Dayton  (09-CA-362228; JD–20–26)  Dayton, OH. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on April 10, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual.

                                                                                          ***

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