Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of January 12 - 16, 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
Satellite Healthcare (Santa Rosa) and Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers—West (20–RC–360713; 374 NLRB No. 25) Santa Rosa, CA, January 15, 2026.
The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision Overruling Employer’s Election Objection and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. In denying review, the Board rejected the Employer’s argument that the Regional Director had no authority to rule on its objections or certify the results of the election because the Board lacked a quorum when the objections were filed and when the Regional Director issued her Decision. The Board explained that it interprets Section 3(b) of the Act to permit Regional Directors to continue to exercise their delegated authority while the Board lacks a quorum and, consistent with that interpretation, maintains a policy instructing Regional Directors to continue to process cases and issue appropriate certifications when quorum is lost. The Board rejected the Employer’s argument that circuit court cases upholding the Board’s interpretation of Section 3(b) under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), are now invalid because Chevron has since been overruled by Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). The Board further concluded that Loper Bright does not provide a basis to change its established interpretation of Section 3(b).
Petitioner—Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers–West. Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
No Unpublished R Cases Issued.
C Cases
RCL Mechanical, Inc. (01-CA-336276, et al.) Raynham, MA, January 13, 2026.
No exceptions having been filed to the May 7, 2025 decision of Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter’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 United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Plumbers and Gasfitters Local 12, AFL-CIO.
Starbucks, Inc. (14-CA-334485) Saint Ann, MO, January 13, 2026. No exceptions having been filed to the March 17, 2025 decision of Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin’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 Chicago and Midwest Regional Joint Board of Workers United/Service Employees International Union.
Watercrest Acquisition I, LLC, d/b/a Krystal Bay Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and Royal Meridian Management Company, LLC, a single employer and joint employers (12-CA-328174) North Miami Beach, FL, January 13, 2026. No exceptions having been filed to the March 11, 2025 decision of Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron’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 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East.
Sutter Valley Hospitals, d/b/a Sutter Solano Medical Center (20-CA-295261, et al.) Sacramento, CA, January 13, 2026. No exceptions having been filed to the February 28, 2025 decision of Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin’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. Charges filed by California Nurses Association and Caregivers and Healthcare Employees Union.
Consumers Energy Company (07-CA-329132) Wyoming, MI, January 13, 2026. No exceptions having been filed to the July 16, 2025 decision of Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron’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 Local 107, Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA), AFL-CIO.
YAPP USA Automotive Systems, Inc. (07-CA-320369 and 07-CA-336485) Detroit, MI, January 13, 2026. No exceptions having been filed to the June 11, 2025 decision of Administrative Law Judge G. Rebekah Ramirez’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 Local 174, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO.
WP Company, LLC d/b/a The Washington Post (5-CA-304208) Washington, D.C., January 15, 2026. No exceptions having been filed to the June 16, 2025 decision of Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi’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 Washington-Baltimore News Guild, Local N0, 32035 a/w The News Guild, Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC.
United States Postal Service (07-CA-310921, et al.) Grand Rapids, MI, January 15, 2026. No exceptions having been filed to the August 1, 2025 decision of Administrative Law Judge G. Melissa M. Olivero’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 Western Michigan Area Local 281, America Postal Workers Union (APWU), AFL-CIO.
Trader Joe’s East (09-CA-312856) Louisville, KY, January 15, 2026. No exceptions having been filed to the December 5, 2025 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 Trader Joe’s United.
NTT Data Americas, Inc. (07-CA-320089) Detroit, MI, January 16, 2026. No exceptions having been filed to the October 10, 2025 decision of Administrative Law Judge G. Rebekah Ramirez’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.
Starbucks Corporation (14-CA-321382) Affton, MO, January 16, 2026. No exceptions having been filed to the September 2, 2025 decision of Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble’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 Chicago & Midwest Regional Joint Board, Workers United/SEIU.
United States Postal Service (27-CA-292103 and 27-CB-279652, et al.) Boulder, CO, January 16, 2026. No exceptions having been filed to the December 3, 2025 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. Charges filed by an individual.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
CenturyTel of Montana, Board No.19-CA-283839 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 128) (D.C. Cir. Jan. 13, 2026)
In a published opinion, the D.C. Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against this telecommunications provider in northwest Montana where a unit of its technicians are covered by a collective-bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 768. In 2021, the Union learned that the Employer was using non-unit employees to perform certain unit work. The Union submitted an information request which included the length of time non-union technicians had been working within the Union’s jurisdiction, the names of customers they serviced, their dispatch and reporting structure, and the systems and locations they could access, as well as job descriptions for both unit and non-union technicians. The Union explained that it needed the information for monitoring the collective-bargaining agreement, and the investigation, preparation and processing of potential grievances. The Employer responded that the information was not relevant to the Union’s bargaining responsibilities.
The Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty; Member Kaplan, dissenting) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to furnish information requested by the Union. The Board concluded, based on the credited evidence, that the Union demonstrated the relevance of the information at the time of the request. On alternative grounds, the Board found that evidence presented at the unfair-labor-practice hearing demonstrated the Union’s reasonable belief that the requested information was relevant to its bargaining duties.
On review, the Court rejected the Employer’s challenges to the Board’s findings on substantial-evidence grounds. Regarding the Board’s conclusion that the Union had a reasonable belief that the information sought was relevant to the performance of the Union’s duties as bargaining representative based on evidence presented at the hearing, the Court held the issue was not preserved for appellate review but nonetheless noted that the Board's finding was consistent with precedent.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
United Parcel Service, Inc. (12-CA-340701; JD-05-26) Davenport, FL. Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey P. Gardner issued his decision on January 13, 2026. Charge filed by an individual.
Recreational Equipment, Inc. (19-CA-316615, et al.; JD(SF)–02–26) Eugene, OR. Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on January 14, 2026. Charges filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 555.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.