Skip to main content
The NLRB public website may experience intermittent outages during maintenance activities
from 8:00 PM EDT on Friday, September 24th to 8:00 PM EDT on Sunday, September 26th. We apologize for the inconvenience.


  1. Home
  2. Cases & Decisions

Cases and Decisions

Cases & Decisions

Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of January 6 - 10, 2020

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

Oxford Electronics, Inc. d/b/a Oxford Airport Technical Services and Worldwide Flight Services, Inc., d/b/a Oxford Airport Technical Services and Total Facility Maintenance Inc., Joint Employers and Oxford Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Oxford Airport Technical Services and Twin Staffing, Inc., Joint Employers  (13-CA-115933 and 13-CB-115935; 369 NLRB No. 6)   Chicago, IL, January 6, 2020.

The Board, giving deference to an advisory opinion from the National Mediation Board, found that the Employer’s operations are subject to the Railway Labor Act.  Accordingly, the Board dismissed the complaint.

Charges filed by International Union of Operating Engineers Local 399, AFL-CIO.  Administrative Law Judge Kimberly R. Sorg-Graves issued her decision on May 31, 2017.  Chairman Ring and Members Kaplan and Emanuel participated.


Shamrock Foods Company  (28-CA-177035, et al.; 369 NLRB No. 5)  Phoenix, AZ, January 7, 2020.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by proffering and entering into a settlement agreement with an individual discriminatee by which the individual waived his right to remedial reinstatement in exchange for a cash payment.  The Board found that, although “there appears to be at least a colorable basis” for finding that the Respondent’s settlement offer was unlawfully motivated, there is nothing “inherently unlawful” in a settlement by which an employee waives reinstatement in exchange for an enhanced remedial payment from the employer.  The Board noted that the issue here was not whether to give effect to the settlement agreement but whether the settlement violated the Act, and that the settlement offer was not conditioned on a prospective waiver of the individual’s Section 7 rights.  It concluded that the Board’s longstanding policy of encouraging the compromise and settlement of unfair labor practice charges weighed in favor of finding the settlement lawful.   Also, the Board adopted the judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by no longer allowing an employee to leave work early on certain days, and that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when it gave employees a holiday banquet including more elaborate prizes and enhanced paid time; when a manager told an employee he could no longer leave early “because of the [union] flyers”; and when the operations manager told another employee he could not change the policy of retaining safety violations on an employee’s record for two years because “[e]very policy . . . is frozen. . . . [b]ecause of the current situation we’re in,” but that “if we weren't in our current situation” policies could be changed.  The Board did not adopt the judge’s conclusion that a supervisor promulgated an unlawful rule by telling an employee that he could not carry a cell phone on the warehouse floor, since the prohibition was stated only to that employee and the statement was not alleged to be otherwise unlawful.  The Board agreed with the judge that, given the violations found in this case, the remedial notice should be read aloud to employees.

Charges filed by Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Local 232.  Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on April 25, 2017.  Chairman Ring and Members Kaplan and Emanuel participated.


G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc.  (19-CA-221172; 369 NLRB No. 7)  Richland, WA, January 9, 2020.

The Board adopted in part and reversed in part the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent, which provides security services to Bechtel at a nuclear-waste processing facility, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by withholding information from the Union.  Specifically, the Board adopted the judge’s findings that the Respondent unlawfully withheld communications between itself and Bechtel that concerned bargaining-unit members and financial information about its contract with Bechtel that pertained to unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment.  However, the Board reversed the judge’s conclusion that the Union demonstrated it was also entitled to a copy of the contract between the Respondent and Bechtel.  In doing so, the Board reasoned that, simply because the Respondent’s predecessor’s contract determined some unit employees’ employment terms and contained evidence of joint employment, does not mean that the Respondent’s contract contained similar provisions.  Without any further evidence of the contract’s relevance to the Union’s representation of the bargaining unit, the Board declined to order its production.

Charge filed by Waste Treatment Security Guards Union 161.  Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on March 25, 2019.  Chairman Ring and Members Kaplan and Emanuel participated.


SJK, Inc. d/b/a Fremont Ford  (32-CA-151443; 369 NLRB No. 4)  Newark, CA, January 9, 2020.

On remand from the Ninth Circuit Court, the Board reconsidered its prior decision (364 NLRB No. 29 (2016)), which the Court vacated.  In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S.Ct. 1612 (2018), the Board reversed itself and dismissed the complaint allegation that the mandatory arbitration agreement was unlawful.  The Board affirmed the finding in its prior decision that the Charging Party’s alternative legal theories as to the arbitration agreement are without merit as they raised substantive arguments that are wholly outside the scope of the General Counsel’s amended complaint.

Charge filed by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, East Bay Automotive Machinists Lodge No. 1546, District Lodge 190.  Chairman Ring and Members Kaplan and Emanuel participated.


Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

No Unpublished R Cases Issued.

C Cases

Southern Ocean Medical Center, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Palisades Medical Center, and the Harborage, a division of HMH Hospitals Corp.  (22-CA-223734 and 22-CA-223942)  Edison, NJ, January 9, 2020.  The Board denied Respondent’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Partial Dismissal, finding that the Respondent has failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact warranting a hearing and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Charges filed by Health Professionals and Allied Employees.  Members Kaplan and Emanuel participated.

M & T Engineering and Construction LLC  (14-CA-240972, et al.)  Overland Park, KS, January 10, 2020.  No exceptions having been filed to the November 26, 2019 decision of Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas’ 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 individuals.


Appellate Court Decisions

No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.


Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Kenworth Sales Co. d/b/a Kenworth Sales Spokane  (19-CA-233407; JD(SF)-01-20)  Spokane, WA.  Administrative Law Judge Ariel L. Sotolongo issued his decision on January 7, 2020.  Charge filed by International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 751, AFL-CIO.


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