Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of February 2 - 6, 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
Winco Holdings, Inc. (27–CA–345285; 374 NLRB No. 37) Salt Lake City, UT, February 4, 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 Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 22. Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.
***
Hackensack Meridian Health Carrier Clinic (22–CA–360422; 374 NLRB No. 35) Belle Mead, NJ, February 4, 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 District 1199J, National Union of Hospital and Healthcare Employees, AFSCME, AFL–CIO. Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
Sun River Health, Inc. (29-RD-347533) Brooklyn, NY, February 4, 2026. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Clarifying Decision to Dismiss Petition Due to Insufficient Showing of Interest and Order Dismissing Petition, finding that it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—an individual. Union—1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.
United Insurance Company of America (16-RM-360104), Beaumont, TX, February 5, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Report on Objection and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—United Food and Commercial Workers Local One. Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.
USC Verdugo Hills Hospital (31-RD-357339) Los Angeles, CA, February 5, 2026.The Board denied the Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Holding Petition in Abeyance, finding that it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—an individual. Union—National Union of Healthcare Workers. Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.
Paragon Systems, Inc. (20-RC-322902) San Francisco, CA, February 6, 2026. The Board denied the Intervenor’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Intervenor’s Objections and Certification of Representative (in which the Regional Director overruled the Intervenor’s objections), finding that it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—United Federation LEOS-PBA Hawaii, Guam, Saipan, and American Samoa. Intervenor—International Union, Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) and its Local 652. Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.
C Cases
Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC. and Amazon. com Services, LLC as joint employers (01-CA-341903) Stoughton, MA, February,6, 2026. The Board denied the Petitioner’s Petition to Revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum in light of the Region’s clarifications in its opposition to the petition. The Board found that the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and that the Petitioner failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Charge filed by an individual. Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Harvard Maintenance, Inc., Board No. 02-CA-254451 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 117) (5th Cir. Feb. 2, 2026)
In a published opinion, the Fifth Circuit denied, in part, enforcement of the Board’s order that issued against this company that cleans office buildings in New York City, including a building at 300 Madison Avenue, where about 60 cleaning employees are represented by SEIU Local 32BJ and covered by a collective-bargaining agreement. The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Wilcox) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening an employee on two separate occasions in 2020. First, after the employee stated her intention to file a grievance or an unfair-labor-practice charge, a supervisor warned her that those actions would lead to adverse consequences. Second, another supervisor later directed her to stop discussing safety and other working conditions with coworkers or face suspension. The Board also found that the Employer later violated Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) when it suspended and discharged the employee for filing Board charges and engaging in other protected activities.
On review, the Court held that the Board’s findings of unlawful threats were supported by substantial evidence, and rejected the Employer’s challenges to the Administrative Law Judge’s credibility determinations which the Board adopted. On the suspension and discharge findings, the Court upheld the Board’s Wright Line analysis. It agreed that the Employer was motivated to take those actions by the employee’s protected activities, as shown on the basis of timing, disparate treatment, and lack of much investigation. Regarding the Employer’s claims in support of its affirmative defense that it would have discharged the employee even absent her protected activities, the Court held the claims belied by credited testimony and audio recordings submitted at hearing. However, with regard to the Employer’s challenge to the Board’s remedy issued in Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22, 2022 WL 17974951, enforcement denied on other grounds, 102 F.4th 727 (5th Cir. 2024), the Court followed recent in-circuit precedent that held that the Board lacked the authority to issue a remedy for “all foreseeable harms” resulting from unfair labor practices, because the Act permits the Board to award “only equitable relief,” citing Hiran Management, Inc. v. NLRB, 157 F.4th 719 (5th Cir. 2025).
The Court’s opinion is here.
Starbucks Corporation, Board No. 07-CA-292971 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 122) (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025)
In a published opinion, the Sixth Circuit denied, in part, enforcement of the Board’s order that issued against Starbucks for unfair labor practices committed at its retail coffee store located at 300 South Main Street in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty) found that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) by discharging an employee, who was a known and active union supporter, because of her union activities and her participation in Board proceedings, and issued an order that included remedies specified in Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22, 2022 WL 17974951, enforcement denied on other grounds, 102 F.4th 727 (5th Cir. 2024).
On review, the Court upheld the Board’s unfair labor practice findings in full. In particular, the Court found that the Board’s application of Wright Line was supported on the record evidence as a whole, finding substantial evidence that her discharge was motivated by animus towards her protected activities, based on timing, disparate treatment, and general union animus. Further, the Court noted that much of that same evidence of animus served also to undermine Starbucks’ claim that it would have discharged the employee even absent her protected activity. However, in assessing Starbucks’ remedial challenge to the Thryv remedy, the Court held that, under its independent reading of Section 10(c) of the Act, the Board’s remedial authority is limited to “equitable remedies,” and that the Board “exceeded its statutory authority” in awarding “‘direct or foreseeable’ monetary damages.” Accordingly, the Court vacated and remanded that portion of the Board’s order.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
No Administrative Law Judge Decisions Issued.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.