Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of August 10 - 14, 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

Ralphs Grocery Company  (21-CA-073942; 375 NLRB No. 25)  Compton, CA, August 10, 2026.

Upon remand from the Ninth Circuit Court, the Board addressed the legality of two provisions in a mandatory arbitration policy.  Starting with the arbitration policy’s prohibition on disclosure of the existence, content, and outcome of the arbitration agreement,  a Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer; Member Prouty, dissenting) found that the provision lawfully restricted employees’ ability to discuss the content and outcome of the arbitration, consistent with the Board’s decision in California Commerce Club, 369 NLRB No. 106 (2020).  However, the Board unanimously found that the confidentiality provision unlawfully restricted employees’ ability to communicate about the existence of the arbitration.  The Board found that the provision restricted employees’ Section 7 right to communicate about terms and conditions of employment and was not shieled by the policies of the Federal Arbitration Act because it did not address the rules under which arbitration would be conducted.  The Board unanimously rejected the Employer’s argument that the case was moot, since there was no record evidence that employees had ever been informed that the policy had been rescinded.  Member Prouty, applying California Commerce Club for institutional reasons, would have also found that the restriction on employees’ ability to discuss the content was unlawful because it similarly did not address the rules under which arbitration would be conducted but instead covered information about the dispute itself or communicated during the proceeding.  

Second, the Board found that the mandatory arbitration policy did not interfere with employees’ ability to access the Board’s processes.  The Board (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer; Member Prouty, dissenting) found that, in light of the policy’s savings clause, employees would not reasonably construe the provision to interfere with their ability to enforce their rights through the Board’s processes.   The majority found that the specific language of the savings clause resolved any ambiguity in the general language of the agreement. Member  Prouty, dissenting, views the savings clause as an inadequate assurance that employees were able to access the Board.  In his view, the savings clause was neither sufficiently prominent nor clear but instead left employees with the impression that filing charges with the Board was futile because all disputes must ultimately be resolved through arbitration.

Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on July 31, 2013.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.   

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Southern Electric Corporation of Mississippi  (12-RC-360889)  Pembroke Pines, FL, August 14, 2026. The Board (Chairman Murphy and Member Prouty; Member Mayer, dissenting in part) denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Approving the Withdrawal of Objection and Portions of Objections, Overruling Objections, Directing Hearing on Remaining Objections, Consolidating Cases, and Notice of Hearing as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Dissenting in part, Member Mayer would have granted review and remanded to the Regional Director for a supplemental decision regarding whether the Union was precluded from asserting two objections premised on the supervisory status of certain individuals. In his view, the Regional Director should have first determined whether the Union had waived its ability to allege that the individuals in question were statutory supervisors before setting the objections for hearing. Petitioner—International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 222, AFL-CIO.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

Touchstone Climbing, Inc.  (32-RC-377918 and 32-RC-377926)  Berkeley, CA, August 13, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  The Regional Director ordered two elections, one in a unit of maintenance employees and another in a unit of routesetter employees, both of which were dispatched from the Employer’s headquarters to work at facilities across the Bay Area of California.  The Regional Director, applying American Steel Construction, rejected the Employer’s argument that the only appropriate unit must include all facility-based employees across the Bay Area.  The Board agreed.  Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer noted that they did not participate in American Steel Construction and applied it for institutional reasons.  The Board denied as moot the request to consolidate the cases with Cases 20-RC-369707, 20-RC-370234, 32-RC-369681, and 32-RC-370217.  Petitioner—Western States Regional Joint Board, Workers United.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.  

Touchstone Climbing, Inc.  (20-RC-369707, et al.)   Berkeley, CA, August 13, 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.  In a consolidated case, the Regional Director found that four facility-wide units of employees at the Employer’s climbing gyms were presumptively appropriate as single-facility units.   Additionally, the Employer failed to rebut the presumptive appropriateness of those units.  The Board rejected the Employer’s argument that the single-facility presumption was inapplicable because certain classifications were dispatched from headquarters to work at multiple facilities.  The Board also agreed with the Regional Director that the Employer failed to rebut the appropriateness of the units, particularly because of significant local autonomy over employment decisions at the individual facilities and the lack of meaningful interchange between employees based at each facility.  The Board denied as moot the request to consolidate the case with Cases 32-RC-377918 and 32-RC-377926. Petitioner—Western States Regional Joint Board, Workers United.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.  

Interstate Waste Services  (04-RC-371470)  Hammonton, NJ, August 13, 2026.  The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order Unblocking and Dismissing Petition.  The Board affirmed the Regional Director’s determination that the petition was barred by the Employer’s prior voluntary recognition of the Intervenor.   In denying review, Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer noted that the Regional Director acted in accordance with Section 103.21(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, which sets out the Board’s current recognition bar policy.  They applied the policy for institutional reasons and expressed no opinion on whether it was correctly determined.  Petitioner—International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 701.  Intervenor—Waste Material, Recycling, and General Industrial Laborers’ Local 108.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

McLaren Oakland  (07-RC-365793)  Pontiac, MI, August 13, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision Overruling Objections and Certification of Representative and the Regional Director’s Supplemental Report on Objections as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Michigan, AFL-CIO. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

HR Bristol, LLC  (10-RC-384480)  Bristol, VA, August 13, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision to Reject Objections and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Member Mayer agreed with his colleagues that the Acting Regional Director correctly applied the Board’s rules in rejecting the Employer’s objections as untimely. Member Mayer stated that the policies of the Act would be better served by amending the Board’s rules to allow Regional Directors some discretion to accept late-filed objections under certain circumstances. Petitioner—Teamsters Local Union No. 519. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

AIDS Healthcare Foundation d/b/a Out of the Closet Thrift Stores  (13-RC-385861)  Chicago, IL, August 13, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Overruling Objections and Issuing Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner— United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1546.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

The Milton Hershey School  (04-RC-371419)  Hershey, PA, August 11, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election and Decision Overruling Objections and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—Teamsters Local Union No. 776 a/w International Brotherhood of Teamsters.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

C Cases

No Unpublished C Cases Issued.

  ***

Appellate Court Decisions

No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.

 ***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

New York Presbyterian – Brooklyn Methodist Hospital  (29-CA-332578; JD-51-26)  Brooklyn, NY.  Administrative Law Judge Michael P. Silverstein issued his decision on August 13, 2026.  Charge filed by New York State Nurses Association. 

McLaren Port Huron  (07-CA-354191; JD–50–26)  Port Huron, MI.  Administrative Law Judge Sarah Karpinen issued her decision on August 12, 2026.  Charge filed by Local 332, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Autofit Inc. (16-CA-355961; JD(SF)–14–26)  Houston, TX.  Administrative Law Judge Sharon Levinson Steckler issued her decision on August 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.