Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of August 31 - September 4, 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

McDowell County Commission on Aging, Inc.  (09-RD-343950; 375 NLRB No. 33)  Welch, WV, September 1, 2026.

The Board (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer; Member Prouty, dissenting) granted review and reversed a Regional Director’s decision to dismiss a decertification petition.  The Board found that by relying on complaint allegations that formed the basis of settled unfair labor practice charges in order to dismiss the petition, the Regional Director acted contrary to Truserv Corp., 349 NLRB 227 (2007).  The Board further explained that the Regional Director’s dismissal letter did not describe the kind of direct employer involvement with the petition that is necessary to demonstrate that the showing of interest has been sufficiently tainted to warrant dismissal.

Dissenting, Member Prouty would have found that the Regional Director acted consistently with Truserv by dismissing the petition after an administrative investigation revealed that the Employer had encouraged and promoted the decertification of the Union and solicited the employees’ showing of interest in support of the petition.

Petitioner—an individual.  Union—Service Employees International Union, District 1199.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Real Entertainment – Philadelphia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of LiveConnections.org, d/b/a World Café Live, Debtor-in-Possession  (04-CA-370494, et al.; 375 NLRB No. 34) Philadelphia, PA, September 2, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the complaint.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging employees for their protected concerted activity because the Respondent believed they were engaged in protected concerted activity and for their Union activity.  In addition, the Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with initiating a lawsuit against them because they engaged in protected concerted activity.  Finally, the Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by withdrawing recognition from and refusing to bargain with UNITE HERE Local 274; refusing to bargain with International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 8; and changing the terms and conditions of employment of its unit employees without giving International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 8 notice and an opportunity to bargain. 

Charges filed by UNITE HERE Local 274 and International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Local 8.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

John Henry Foster Minnesota, Inc.  (18-RC-306175; 375 NLRB No. 36)  Eagan, MN, September 4, 2026. 

A Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer) granted the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order on Challenged Ballots. The majority held that the Regional Director erred in affirming the Hearing Officer’s revocation of the Employer’s subpoena requests, which sought information pertaining to whether the challenged employees intended to return to their struck positions after the election. Specifically, the majority found that, rather than revoking the subpoena requests outright on the basis that the protection of employees’ Section 7 rights outweighed the Employer’s need for the requested information, the Regional Director should have first conducted an in-camera review of responsive documents. Accordingly, the majority remanded the case to the Regional Director. The majority explained that a limited remand for in-camera inspection of relevant documents will serve to protect both the Employer’s due process rights and employees’ Section 7 rights. 

Dissenting, Member Prouty would have denied review in all respects. He argued that the Regional Director properly affirmed the Hearing Officer’s revocation of the subpoena requests in question because, among other reasons, the requests overtly target employees’ protected activities such that granting them, even on limited grounds, is violative of employees’ Section 7 rights; the requests are overly broad such that they amount to a fishing expedition; and the Employer failed to articulate a particularized need for the requested documents.  Member Prouty also disagreed with the majority that a limited remand for in-camera review would serve to preserve employees’ Section 7 rights. Instead, he asserted that the majority’s decision will encourage employers to issue blanket subpoenas and demand in-camera inspection based solely on speculation that doing so might uncover useful information; and that encouragement will, among other things, cause unnecessary delay and undue administrative burdens in representation cases; compromise workers’ Section 7 rights; and undermine the Board’s credibility as adjudicators. 

Petitioner—Pipefitters Local 455. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. d/b/a Doctors Hospital of Manteca  (32-RC-379650) Manteca, CA, September 1, 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—Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers - West. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. d/b/a Doctors Hospital of Manteca  (32-RC-376933) Manteca, CA, September 1, 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—Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers - West. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Reed Institute d/b/a Reed College (19-RC-378745)  Portland, OR, September 1, 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. In denying review of the Regional Director’s finding that the Night Lead role was not supervisory, the Board did not reach the question of whether the rotating nature of the role was inconsistent with supervisory status, although Member Prouty stated that the Employer had not met its burden to establish employees spent a regular and substantial portion of their work time in that role. Petitioner— International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA).  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

KGW-TV  (19-RC-376874)  Portland, OR, September 2, 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—IBEW Local 48. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

C Cases

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (22-CA-359489, et al.) Cranbury, NJ, September 1, 2026.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the consolidated complaint, finding that the Respondent failed to establish that there were no genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Charges filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Northville Manor, LLC   (07-CA-326048)  Northville, MI, September 3, 2026.   No exceptions having been filed to the July 14, 2026 decision of Administrative Law Judge Sarah Karpinen’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

Siren Retail Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Reserve Roastery, Board Case No. 02-CA-305984 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 140) (2d Cir. September 2, 2026).

In a published opinion, the Second Circuit denied enforcement in part, and remanded in part, the Board’s order that issued against this Starbucks Reserve Roastery in New York City for violations of the Act in relation to maintaining certain requirements in its dress code.  During a time when a group of employees coordinated the wearing of the same union t-shirt on a set date that referred to Workers United actively organizing Starbucks stores, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox) found that Siren violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining prohibitions on employees wearing: (1) more than one pin or button in support of a labor organization; (2) shirts with designs, logos, or writings other than a small manufacturer’s logo; and (3) buttons or pins advocating a political, religious, or personal issue. 

On review, the Court denied enforcement with regard to the one-pin rule, finding it contrary to the in-circuit precedent of NLRB v. Starbucks Corp., 679 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding Starbucks’ one-pin policy not unlawful in another retail setting).  Regarding the other two dress code prohibitions, the Court rejected the analytical approach the Board took in applying the test announced in Tesla, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 131 (2022), enforcement denied, 86 F.4th 640 (5th Cir. 2023) (holding that such restrictions on employee rights are presumptively invalid, unless the employer establishes special circumstances to justify the infringement).  Rather, the Court held that, in its view, “the Board’s Tesla test, as applied, fails to properly balance employer and employee interests,” as required under Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945). Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the Board with instructions to analyze those two dress-code rules consistent with its opinion.

The Court’s opinion is here.

 

Starbucks Corporation, Board Case No. 14-CA-300065 (reported at 374 NLRB No. 14) (5th Cir. September 4, 2026).

In a published opinion, the Fifth Circuit enforced in part the Board’s order that issued against Starbucks for unfair labor practices committed at its Amidon store in Wichita, Kansas, after an organizing campaign was initiated by the employees and a petition for an election was filed by Service Employees International Union Local 513 in 2022.  The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty; Member Kaplan, dissenting in part) found that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening employees with loss of benefits if they unionized, creating the impression that their union activities were under surveillance, and telling employees it had closed its hiring portal and reduced store hours because of their union activities. 

On review, the Court upheld the Board’s finding that Starbucks unlawfully threatened the employees with loss of benefits if they unionized.  However, the Court held that the remaining findings were insufficiently supported by record evidence.  Regarding the impression of surveillance, the Court viewed the statements of managers that the Board relied on in finding that they had gathered knowledge of union activity, without more, did not demonstrate the requisite evidence of coercion. Regarding the Board’s findings involving store hours and hiring portal changes, the Court held that the statements did not rise to the level of a threat of reprisal, explaining that they were not outright linked to the employees’ union activity and would not be understood by a reasonable employee as coercive in the specific context. 

The Court’s opinion is here.

 

Starbucks Corporation, Board Case No. 03-CA-285671 (reported at 374 NLRB No. 10) (5th Cir. September 4, 2026).

In a published opinion that issued on Friday, September 4, 2026, the Fifth Circuit enforced the bulk of the Board’s order that issued against Starbucks for a litany of unfair labor practices committed in 2021 after Workers United initiated an organizing campaign across the 21 Starbucks stores in Buffalo, New York.

The Board explained that Starbucks’ response to the Buffalo area campaign was swift, extensive, and unprecedented, and included sending a team of some of its most senior national executives to Buffalo to take over functions from local store managers.  Their actions included soliciting employee grievances and promising and granting benefits, instructing store managers to monitor and respond to union activities, wearing headsets to listen to employee conversations, holding “listening sessions,” imposing more onerous working conditions, as well as discharging six employees, disciplining and taking other adverse actions against them, and unilaterally changing policies.  After several elections were held, the Union was certified at eight stores, but lost the election at the Camp Road store on a vote of 8 to 12, despite previously receiving authorization cards from a majority of store employees.  

The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox) found that Starbucks committed numerous unfair labor practices under Section 8(a)(1), (3), (4), and (5).  Among other remedies, the Board issued a bargaining order at the Camp Road store pursuant to NLRB v. Gissel Packing, 395 U.S. 575 (1969), as well as a requirement that Starbucks reopen the Galleria kiosk that it discriminatorily closed, and a notice-reading remedy at Buffalo stores to help dissipate the chilling effect of the violations on employees’ willingness to exercise their Section 7 rights.

Undertaking a comprehensive review of the lengthy record, the Court upheld on substantial-evidence grounds all but three of the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings, all three of which were Section 8(a)(1) findings.  For the six unlawful discharges, the Court held that the Board properly applied its Wright Line test in finding Starbucks had the requisite animus towards the employees’ protected activities, and that Starbucks’ proffered reasons for the discharges were pretextual.  In doing so, the Court noted that “the Board’s decision points to an extensive record of conduct that is more than sufficient for a reasonable mind to infer an anti-union motive in taking adverse actions against union-affiliated employees.”  However, because the Board in finding animus relied, in part, on the three overturned Section 8(a)(1) findings, the Court explained that although “Starbucks’s violations of § 8(a)(3) and (4) are supported by substantial evidence, [] we think this issue necessitates remand for the Board to specify the specific violations it relied on from its § 8(a)(1) analysis.”  Also on substantial-evidence grounds, the Court upheld the Board’s unilateral-change findings, including the stricter enforcement of its work policies which Starbucks proffered as reasons for discharging two employees.  

On the challenged remedies, the Court enforced the Gissel bargaining order for the Camp Road store, holding that “the record weighs in favor of the Board’s conclusion,” given that “Starbucks engaged in serious and extensive unfair labor practices.”  Similarly, the Court enforced the Board’s notice-reading remedy.  Although the Court noted that generally it is cautious in granting this remedy when an employer is not a repeat offender, its concern in this case was alleviated because “the myriad decisions involving Starbucks’s unfair labor practices lends support to the inference that this petition is not Starbucks’s first rodeo.”  Finally, however, finding that it would be unduly burdensome, the Court did not enforce the requirement that Starbucks reopen the Galleria kiosk.

The Court’s opinion is here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

O’Neill Asset Management, LLC  (07-CA-352673; JD–59–26)  Grand Rapids, MI.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on September 1, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual.

HB Boardroom Galleria, LLC  (16-CA-373437; JD-60-26)  Houston, TX.  Administrative Law Judge Susannah Merritt issued her decision on September 2, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, Local 2420  (12-CB-360927; JD-61-26)  Jacksonville, FL. Administrative Law Judge Michael P. Silverstein issued his decision on September 3, 2026.  Charge filed by Mack Trucks, Inc.

***

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