Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of February 16 - 20, 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

USC Care Medical Group, Inc. ( USC Student Health Department)  (31–CA–360815; 374 NLRB No. 42)  Los Angeles, CA, February 18, 2026. 

The Board granted the Acting 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. 

Charge filed by the National Union of Healthcare Workers.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

***

RM Contracting, LLC d/b/a 3M Contracting, LLC  (18–CA–351538; 374 NLRB No. 44)  Osceola, IA, February 19, 2026. 

The Board granted the Acting 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 International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 234.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

***

Amazon.com Services LLC  (29-CA-280153, et al.; 374 NLRB No. 38)  Staten Island, NY, February 19, 2026.

The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) in November 2021, by promising employees improvements in its Career Choice Program in order to discourage them from selecting the Union.  The Respondent had previously announced these changes in September 2021.  The Board found that, absent a complaint allegation that the Respondent’s decision to improve the Career Choice Program or its September announcement was unlawfully motivated, the judge did not err in dismissing these allegations under precedent holding that employers may lawfully remind employees of existing benefits during a union campaign.  These complaint allegations had previously been severed and retained for further consideration by the Board’s decision in Amazon.com Services, LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (2024).

Charges filed by an individual and Amazon Labor Union. Administrative Law Judge Benjamin W. Green issued his decision on January 30, 2023.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

***

Jofaz Transportation, Inc. and Y & M Transit, Inc.  (29–CA–349471; 374 NLRB No. 41)  Brooklyn, NY, February 19, 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 interrogating employees about their union and protected concerted activities and discharging employees and refusing to reinstate or offer to reinstate them for complaining about the selection of their annual bus routes and other terms and conditions of employment.

Charge filed by an individual.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

First Student, Inc. (19-UD-357422) Seattle, WA, February 17, 2026.  The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order Dismissing Petition (in which the Regional Direction found the petition was not coextensive with the bargaining unit), as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—an individual. Union—Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local 58.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

ElringKlinger Automotive Manufacturing, Inc.  (07-RC-351974) Southfield, MI, February 18, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order to Open and Count Determinative Challenged Ballots as moot.  In denying review, the Board noted that the denial was without prejudice to the Employer’s right to renew its arguments concerning supervisory status should the issue arise in subsequent proceedings.  Member Prouty agreed to deny review for mootness but would have addressed the supervisory status issue and would have found that the Regional Director did not commit clear error or depart from precedent in finding that the Employer’s Team Leaders are not supervisors.  Petitioner—International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

Centerra Group, LLC  (05-RC-313581)  Baltimore, MD, February 19, 2026. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA).  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

Brattleboro Memorial Hospital  (03-RC-358264, et al.)  Brattleboro, VT, February 19, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision, Order, and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—Brattleboro Healthcare United, AFT-VT, AFT, AFL-CIO.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.  (27-RC-345867)  Meridian, ID, February 19, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 555.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated. 

New York Paving, Inc.  (29-RC-341240) New York, NY, February 20, 2026. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Dismissing Petition and Withdrawing Notice of Hearing as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—Construction Council Local 175, Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

Green Thumb Industries, Inc. d/b/a GTI New Jersey, LLC  (22-RD-351155)  Hackettstown, NJ, February 20, 2026. The Board denied the Union’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying Motion to Revoke Approval of Stipulated Election Agreement as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—an individual.  Union—United Food and Commercial Workers Local 360.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated. 

Sea World of Florida LLC d/b/a Discovery Cove (12-RC-362952)  Orlando, FL, February 20, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election (in which the Regional Director found Dive Supervisors are not Section 2(11) supervisors), as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 30, AFL-CIO.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated. 

Renal Treatment Centers – California, Inc. d/b/a Davita Concord Dialysis Center   (32-RC-337328) Concord, CA, February 20, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision on Election Objections and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers – West. Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated. 

C Cases

Accurate Metal Fabricating, LLC  (13-CA-344936 and 13-RC-305160)  Cicero, IL, February 18, 2026.  No exceptions having been filed to the January 5, 2026 decision of Administrative Law Judge Christal J. Key’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 Teamsters Local 781 and Plastic Workers Union Local No. 18, AFL-CIO.  

Civic Influencers, Inc. (05-CA-345478, et al.)  Lewes, DE, February 18, 2026.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. The Board found that the Respondent had not demonstrated that there are no genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing, that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or that the Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Charges filed by United Professional Organizers.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

United Parcel Service, Inc.  (12-CA-340701)  Davenport, FL, February 20, 2026.  No exceptions having been filed to the January 13, 2026 decision of Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey P. Gardner’s finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions and dismissed the complaint.  Charge filed by an individual.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

Garten Trucking LC, Board No. 10-CA-279843 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 94) (4th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026)

In an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against this transporter of paper products and other goods from a facility in Covington, Virginia, for unfair labor practices committed during the continuation of an organizing campaign by the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers that had begun back in early 2021.  In a prior case, the Fourth Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) during the Union’s campaign to represent 109 employees at the facility by telling employees that they would have already received wage increases if it were not for their union activities.  Garten Trucking LC v. NLRB, 139 F.4th 269 (4th Cir. 2025), enforcing 373 NLRB No. 64 (2024). 

In the current case, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating two union supporters, creating the impression that the employees’ union activity was under surveillance, threatening facility closure and job loss if employees unionized, informing employees that unionizing would be futile, maintaining an overbroad solicitation policy, and telling a leading union supporter that he was being disciplined because of his union activity. The Board also found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) by issuing written warnings to two employees, and adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation to set aside the election, which the Union lost on a vote of 65 to 30 after earlier obtaining 61 authorization cards representing the support of the majority of employees.  Among other remedies, the Board issued a notice-reading requirement, a broad cease-and-desist order, and a bargaining order under NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969).

On review, the Court agreed with the Board’s determinations and held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings.  Among other rulings, the Court found that the Employer’s challenges did not meet the standard for overcoming the Administrative Law Judge’s credibility assessments, improperly asked the Court to accept “its blanket denials,” which were contradicted by the specific testimony of credited witnesses, or were otherwise unsupported by evidence. 

Turning to the remedies, the Court noted that the Board “maintains broad discretion to craft orders that remedy unfair labor practices,” citing NLRB v. Williams Enters., Inc., 50 F.3d 1280 (4th Cir. 1995), and held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in issuing the remedies.  Regarding the bargaining order, the Court explained that the Board “must make specific and detailed findings about ‘the likelihood of recurring misconduct, the residual impact of unfair labor practices, considering whether that effect has been or will be dissipated by the passage of time, and the efficacy of [ordinary] remedies,’” quoting Evergreen Am. Corp. v. NLRB, 531 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2008).

After undertaking an extensive review of the Board’s analysis of those factors, the specific evidence that the Board cited as support, and the Employer’s challenges to the Board’s reasoning, the Court concluded that the Board “properly imposed a Gissel order.” Regarding the notice-reading remedy and the broad cease-and-desist order, the Court noted that “the Board specifically selected the remedies ‘in light of [the Employer’s] extensive and serious unfair labor practices’ while weighing the ‘numerosity and egregiousness’ of [the] violations.”  Noting that the Employer “offered no evidence that the Board abused its discretion by imposing these remedies,” the Court stated that “we defer to the knowledge and expertise of the Board and hold it acted within its discretion in imposing both the notice order and cease-and-desist order.”

The Court’s opinion is here.

Trader Joe's, Board No. 16-CA-291179 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 73) (5th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026)

In a published opinion, the Fifth Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against Trader Joe’s for unfair labor practices committed at one of its grocery stores in Houston, Texas.  In 2020, a store employee along with co-workers began raising health and safety concerns in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic.  After Trader Joe’s eliminated some early precautions at the store, such as a mask requirement, concerns escalated.  As the employee continued to press for increased safety protocols, some heated exchanges with managers occurred.  After the employee was issued a written warning, she filed an unfair-labor-practice charge.  She was then suspended, filed a second charge, and was discharged.  The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox) found that Trader Joe’s violated Section 8(a)(1) by issuing the written warning for making protected health and safety complaints, and violated Section 8(a)(4) and (1) by suspending and discharging the employee for filing Board charges. 

On review, the Court (Judges Dennis and Douglas; Judge Oldham, dissenting) held that the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.  Regarding the written warning, the Court agreed with the Board’s Wright Line analysis, and rejected the Employer’s challenge to the Board’s finding of animus.  The Court also held that the Board reasonably concluded that Trader Joe’s “failed to demonstrate sufficient congruity” between the disciplines received by the employee and an asserted comparator, and thus rejected the assertion that Trader Joe’s would have issued the written warning regardless of her protected activity. 

On the Board’s findings that Trader Joe’s unlawfully suspended and discharged the employee for filing charges with the Board, the Court again agreed with the Board’s Wright Line analysis.  On the contested issue of animus, the Court noted the record evidence on timing, that Trader Joe’s had improperly relied on co-worker reports of the employee’s protected conduct, and agreed with the Board’s determination that Trader Joe’s conducted a faulty investigation.  In finding that Trader Joe’s failed to meet its burden of proof on its asserted affirmative defense, the Court commented that “[r]egardless of whether Trader Joe’s could have suspended and terminated [the employee] for reasons beyond her protected conduct, Trader Joe’s needed to prove that it would have done so.”  

Finally, the Court held that the belatedly raised challenge to the Board’s Thryv remedy was jurisdictionally barred from review because it failed to raise the issue before the Board, and did not present the Court with an extraordinary circumstance that would excuse that failure. Accordingly, the Court enforced the Board’s order in full. 

The Court’s opinion is here.  

Southwest Florida Symphony Orchestra and Chorus Association, Inc., Board No. 12-CA-272243 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 150) (11th Cir. Feb. 19. 2026)

In an unpublished opinion, the Eleventh Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against this Orchestra based in Fort Myers, Florida, where its musicians have been covered by a series of collective-bargaining agreements negotiated by their representative, American Federation of Musicians, Local 427-721, AFL-CIO.  The underlying complaint alleged that during the course of negotiations for a successor agreement in 2019, the Orchestra unilaterally implemented its proposals without first bargaining to a valid overall impasse in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a order recommending that the Board dismiss the allegation, and the General Counsel and the Union filed exceptions with the Board.  The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox), while explicitly leaving the ALJ’s credibility determinations intact, made additional factual findings “based on testimony not addressed” by the ALJ.  Consistent with those findings, and the totality of the record evidence, the Board found that the Orchestra prematurely declared impasse and unilaterally implemented its last offer.   

On review, the Court rejected the Orchestra’s contention that the standard of review had changed after Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), explaining that the case did not involve an issue of statutory interpretation, but was an evidentiary case subject to “the ordinary substantial-evidence standard,” and that the issue of impasse is a “question of fact peculiarly suited to the Board’s expertise.”  The Court also rejected the Orchestra’s argument that the Board should have found that the General Counsel’s and the Union’s exceptions and briefs to the Board were insufficient under 29 C.F.R. § 102.46, noting that the Board has discretion to determine if such filings meet the requirements of the Board’s rules.

On the merits, the Court upheld the Board’s finding that the Orchestra’s declaration of impasse was premature.  Applying the factors of Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475 (1967), aff’d, 395 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1968), the Court agreed with the Board’s conclusion that the Orchestra “declared impasse despite both recent progress at the table and, critically, the Union’s stated intention to survey its members regarding their reasons” for rejecting the Orchestra’s proposal of September 2019, “where previously a membership survey following a last offer had been a harbinger of new Union proposals.”  Noting that the Union’s conduct suggested a genuine possibility of continued productive bargaining, the Court held that the Board had reasonably concluded that the Orchestra’s declaration of impasse in September 2019 was premature, and that its unilateral implementation of its last offer was unlawful. 

The Court’s opinion is here. 

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

B.N.F. Painting, LLC  (09–CA–318278; JD-13-26)  Cincinnati, OH.   Administrative Law Judge Kimberly R. Sorg-Graves issued her decision on February 17, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual. 

Ascension Providence Rochester Hospital  (07-CA-301250, et al.; JD-11-26) Rochester, MI.  Administrative Law Judge Benjamin W. Green issued his decision on February 18, 2026.  Charges filed by Local 40, Office and Professional Employees Internation Union (OPEIU), AFL-CIO. 

X Factor S2 LLC  (31-CA-323348; JD-12-26)  Escondido, CA.  Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on February 19, 2026.  Charge filed by International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) Local 728.

                                                                                             ***

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