Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of August 17 - 21, 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

No Published Decisions Issued.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

DVA Renal Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a DaVita Vallejo  (20-RC-346835)  Vallejo, CA, August 20, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Board’s Order, reported at 375 NLRB No. 2 (2026).  Petitioner—SEIU, United Healthcare Workers - West. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Phoenix Energy Management Inc. and PEM Inc.  (29-RM-350311)  Brooklyn, NY, August 20, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order Dismissing Petitions as it raised no substantial issue warranting review.  The Board noted that the Regional Director did not err by assuming as true the allegation in the unfair labor practice complaint that Local 852 had assumed representation of the unit employees from Local 580.  Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer noted their application of Rieth-Riley Construction Co., 371 NLRB No. 109, slip op. at 7 (2022), for institutional reasons.  Member Mayer expressed his belief that a reassessment of Rieth-Riley was overdue, and further noted his concern over the regrettable delay between the close of the preelection hearing and the issuance of the merit-determination dismissal. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

Marathon Petroleum Logistics Services LLC  (27-RD-387246)  Roosevelt, UT, August 19, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s determination to hold the petition in abeyance as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer noted that the Board’s current blocking policy contemplates that Regional Directors will continue to evaluate blocking determinations throughout the steps of processing the charge and the petition. Petitioner—an individual. Union—International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 222. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

C Cases

Starbucks Corporation  (28-CA-313460)  Phoenix, AZ, August 19, 2026.  The Board granted the Respondent’s Request for Special Permission to Appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s Order denying the General Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw Consolidated Complaint Allegations and for Remand to the Regional Director, but denied the appeal on the merits.  The Board found that the Respondent failed to establish that the judge abused her discretion in denying the General Counsel’s motion.  Charge filed by Workers United a/w Service Employees International Union.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Southern Aluminum Finishing Company, Inc. (05-CA-325283 and 25-CA-325296)  Indianapolis, IN, August 17, 2026.  No exceptions having been filed to the June 3, 2026  decision of Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey P. Gardner’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 Sheet Metal Workers, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, Local Union No. 20. 

***

Appellate Court Decisions

Preferred Building Services, Inc. and Rafael Ortiz d/b/a Ortiz Janitorial Services, Joint Employers, Board Case 20-CA-149353 (reported at 374 NLRB No. 11) (D.C. Cir. Aug. 21, 2026).

In a published opinion, the D.C. Circuit enforced the Board’s supplemental order that issued against Preferred Building Services and Ortiz Janitorial Services, as joint employers, after remand from the Ninth Circuit.  The Court upheld the findings by the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty) that the Employers committed numerous violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (3), including discharging employees in retaliation for picketing outside a building where they worked as janitors in San Francisco, California, in 2014. 

In its initial decision (366 NLRB No. 159), the Board (Chairman Ring and Members Kaplan and Emanuel) dismissed the complaint after finding merit in the Employers’ affirmative defense that the employees lost the Act’s protection because their picketing was coercive and targeted businesses located in the building that were not involved in their labor dispute.  Among other things, the Board found that the employees’ picket signs and leaflets failed to clearly disclose that their dispute was with their Employers and not neutral building tenants.  The Board found that by obfuscating the target of their labor dispute, the employees sought to enmesh neutral employers in their dispute and cause them to cease doing business with the Employers in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), rendering their picketing unprotected.

On review, the Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review filed by the Service Employees International Union Local 87, and remanded.  The Court held that the Board’s finding that an object of the employees’ picketing was to coerce neutral employers in the building to cease doing business with their Employers was not supported by substantial evidence.  Specifically, the Court stated that the Board had improperly relied in isolation on one sentence on one leaflet, and that there was insufficient evidence that the employees’ otherwise clear message that their dispute was with the Employers was obfuscated by the language on one leaflet.  Lastly, the Court held that the Board failed to identify sufficient evidence rebutting the presumption that the picketing was lawful, and remanded the case to the Board.

On remand, the Board accepted the Ninth Circuit’s decision as law of the case, affirmed joint-employer status, found that the Employers violated the Act as alleged, and rejected the Employers’ argument that the picketing was unprotected activity.  In finding the picketing protected, the Board rejected the Employers’ arguments and found that the exclusion of its proffered defensive evidence in the unfair-labor-practice hearing had not prejudiced its secondary picketing defense, and that its claim that the picketing was improper recognitional picketing had no record support.  In its order, the Board included the standard remedy provided in Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022). 

Back on review, the D.C. Circuit agreed with the Board’s analysis of the issues it decided on remand. It held that substantial evidence supported the unfair labor practices, as well as the Board’s assessment of the nature of the employees’ picketing, which the Court recognized was a factual determination.  In doing so, the Court comprehensively reviewed the evidence supporting the Board’s findings, and agreed with the Board that the Employers had not been prejudiced by having certain proffered evidence excluded at hearing.  On the Employers’ challenges to the Board’s Thryv remedy, the Court held the challenges were barred from review under Section 10(e) of the Act, because they had not been raised before the Board. Accordingly, the Court enforced the Board’s order in full. 

The Court’s opinion is here.

International Longshore and Warehouse Union and International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 19 (SSA Terminals, LLC), Board No. 19-CD-269624 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 66) (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2026).

In a published opinion that issued in this rehearing proceeding, the unanimous en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the circuit precedent that the initial three-judge panel had been bound to apply, and enforced the Board’s order in full. In a separate, unpublished memorandum disposition that issued concurrently, the Court upheld the Board’s unfair-labor-practice finding as supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law, and rejected a challenge to the remedies provided for in the Board’s order. 

The case arose from a jurisdictional dispute between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 160, Local Lodge 289 (IAM), after SSA Terminals (SSAT) opened a container terminal in the Port of Seattle and assigned maintenance and repair work at that terminal for the first time.  Under their respective collective-bargaining agreements, ILWU and IAM were both equally entitled to perform the work, and both unions demanded that SSAT comply with its contractual obligations.  In an earlier proceeding (369 NLRB No. 126), the Board exercised its authority to resolve the dispute under Section 10(k) of the Act and awarded the work to IAM.  After ILWU continued to pursue the disputed work, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty) found that ILWU violated Section 8(b)(4)(D).  The Board rejected ILWU’s assertion of a work-preservation defense that instead would apply in secondary-boycott cases, as described in NLRB v. International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), 447 U.S. 490 (1980), and distinguished International Longshore & Warehouse Union v. NLRB, 978 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2020) (Kinder Morgan) on the same basis.

On review, a three-judge panel (Circuit Judges Thomas and Miller, District Judge Rosenthal sitting by designation) held that the Board’s rejection of the ILA work-preservation defense raised by ILWU could not be reconciled with the circuit precedent of Kinder Morgan, for which the Court stated it was bound.  The Court therefore applied Kinder Morgan, which had held that “[a] valid work-preservation objective provides a complete defense against alleged violations of section 8(b)(4)(D), as well as against jurisdictional disputes under section 10(k).” The Court then concluded that the case should be remanded to the Board. In a concurring opinion, Judge Miller wrote separately to express his view that Kinder Morgan was wrongly decided.

The Board filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was granted. The Court ordered supplemental briefing and oral argument, after which it issued a decision overturning Kinder Morgan and holding that the Board properly determined that ILWU violated Section 8(b)(4)(D).  Agreeing with the Board’s position on rehearing, the Court explained that it was overruling the statement in Kinder Morgan that an ILA work-preservation defense may defeat an unfair-labor-practice allegation for failure to abide by the Board’s resolution of a jurisdictional dispute. Accordingly, the Court enforced the Board’s order in full.

The Court’s opinions are here and here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Aleut Information Technology, LLC  (19–CA–350069, et al.; JD-54-26)  Anderson, AK.  Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl issued his decision on August 19, 2026.  Charges filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 959. 

Shell Pipeline Co., LP; Shell Chemical, LP; and  Pennzoil-Quaker State Company d/b/a SOPUS Products  (16-CA-342028, et al.; JD(SF)-15-26)  Galena Park, TX.  Administrative Law Judge Brian D. Gee issued his decision on August 17, 2026.  Charges filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC. 

Raven Clinical Research, Inc.  (09-CA-361350.; JD-53-26)  Greenwich, CT.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on August 17, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual. 

Asante Rogue Regional Medical Center  (19-CA-316937 and 19-CA-321148; JD-52-26)  Medford, OR.  Administrative Law Judge Susannah Merritt issued her decision on August 17, 2026.  Charges filed by Oregon Nurses Association. 

***

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