Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of July 27 - 31, 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

Statesville Painting and Maintenance LLC  (10-CA-325878, et al.; 375 NLRB No. 11)  Danville, VA, July 27, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file a timely answer in accordance with the Board’s Rules and Regulations.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure or terms and conditions of employment of its employes, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization; and Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith with the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees.

Charges filed by International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT), District Council 53. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Renal Treatment Centers – California, Inc. d/b/a DaVita Concord Dialysis Center (32-CA-347702; 375 NLRB No. 13)  Concord, CA, July 27, 2026.

The Board granted the 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 Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers – West. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Walgreens Company  (19-CA-359612; 375 NLRB No. 14)  Vancouver, WA,  July 27, 2026, 

The Board granted the 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 The Pharmacy Guild a/w International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Wheatland Electric Cooperative, Inc.  (14-RC-351691, 375 NLRB No. 16)  Garden City, KS, July 29, 2026.  

The Board granted review and reversed the Regional Director's conclusion that certain warehouse employees—who the petitioner sought to add to an existing unit by way of a self-determination election—did not share a community of interest with the employees in the existing unit.  The Board emphasized that the question in this case was whether the warehouse employees may be included in the existing unit (in contrast to certain cases cited by the Regional Director, which concerned the distinct question of whether additional employees must be included in a petitioned-for unit), and further observed that the diversity of the existing unit (which contained a wide variety of classifications) was relevant to consider generally.  Applying the community-of-interest factors, the Board found that wages and other terms and conditions of employment, functional integration, and contract established that the warehouse employees shared a community of interest with the employees in the existing unit.  The Board accordingly remanded with instructions for the Regional Director to conduct an election to determine whether the warehouse employees wished to be included in the existing unit.  

Petitioner—International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 304.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc.  (07-CA-277239 and 07-CA-279287; 375 NLRB No. 15) Detroit, MI, July 29, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by unlawfully discharging two employees for engaging in union and other protected concerted activities, including engaging in protected picketing in support of a strike.  The Board (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer; Member Prouty, dissenting) also reversed the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent unlawfully threatened employees for filing grievances or pursuing grievances, regardless of their merit.

Charges filed by individuals.  Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on January 24, 2022.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

***

Frito-Lay Inc.  (18-RD-356346: 375 NLRB No. 18)  Menomonee Falls, WI, July 30, 2026.

The Board denied the Union’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction on Objections and Issuance of Certification of Results of Election.  The Board unanimously denied review of several objections.  The Board also denied review of two other objections.  The first objection involved a discharged union steward who was removed from the property when he tried to campaign during the election period.  Under extent precedent, the steward was entitled to vote by challenge.   A Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer) denied review of the Regional Director’s finding that the removal of the steward for campaigning did not interfere with his right to vote, since he did not attempt to enter the facility to vote on the day of the election.  Dissenting, Member Prouty noted that the Employer’s ban of the steward from the property, announced without exception, would lead the employee to reasonably conclude that he was not able to enter the property to vote.  The second objection involved a statement by a manager that employees would get raises comparable to a non-union facility if they voted to decertify.  Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer affirmed the Regional Director’s finding that the evidence about the statement lacked sufficient precision and context to satisfy the heavy burden to constitute a promise of benefit and set aside the election.  Member Prouty, dissenting, noting the extremely close election, noted that the credited testimony was that a manager told several employees that they would receive a wage increase if they decertified the Union, a statement which needs no further context to constitute a promise of benefits.  

Petitioner—an individual.  Union—Teamsters, Local 344.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

ArtCenter College of Design  (31–CA–325485; 375 NLRB No. 17)  Pasadena, CA, July 30, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent did not fail or refuse to provide the Union with adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to bargain over the effects on unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment of the creation of two new non-unit position and dismissed the complaint.

Charge filed by California Federation of Teachers, AFL–CIO.  Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on November 26, 2025.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Menorah Campus, Inc. d/b/a The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Campus  (03-CA-353575; 375 NLRB No. 19)  Getzville, NY, July 31, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file a timely answer in accordance with the Board’s Rules and Regulations.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing and refusing to adhere to the terms of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement as it pertains to mandatory subjects of bargaining, by failing and refusing to remit to the union dues deducted pursuant to the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement and to the pension fund contributions on behalf of unit employees, and by repudiating and/or failing to comply with other provisions of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.

Charge filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

BLES Healthcare Management, LLC – Rosemont Care and Rehabilitation Center  (04-CA-345152 and 04-CA-366793; 375 NLRB No. 22)  Bryn Mawr, PA, July 31, 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)(5) and (1) by failing to post vacant bargaining unit positions and by failing to provide and unreasonably delaying in providing information requested by the Union. 

Charges filed by SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Whole Foods Market, Inc.  (01–CA–263079, et al.; 375 NLRB No. 20)  various locations, July 31, 2026.

The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by prohibiting its employees from wearing clothing or accessories that displayed the phrase “Black Lives Matter” or its acronym “BLM” during working time, and disciplining employees for doing so. The Board agreed with the judge’s finding that the employees’ BLM display did not have a goal related to the employees’ terms and conditions of employment or their lot as employees and therefore was not protected by the Act.

The Board (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer; Member Prouty, dissenting) reversed the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining promulgating, and enforcing an overly broad dress code rule in its employee handbook from late 2013 until November 2020.  Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer cited the Respondent’s good-faith compliance with a 2013 Settlement Agreement concerning the dress code rule; that its omission of one word from the revised rule was inadvertent; and that the General Counsel for approximately 8 years after the 2013 Settlement Agreement never indicated to the Respondent that there was an issue with the rule.

Member Prouty, in dissent, would have found the Respondent’s dress code rule unlawful.  Member Prouty emphasized that it was undisputed that the Respondent never fully complied with the Settlement Agreement; that the word required by the Settlement Agreement omitted by the Respondent prohibited employees from wearing pins with messages protected by Section 7; and that the consequences of delay are not to be placed upon wronged employees to the benefit of wrongdoing employers.

Charges filed by individuals.   Administrative Law Judge Ariel L. Sotolongo issued his decision on December 20, 2023.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

V2X, Inc.  (31-RC-383401)  Fort Irwin, CA, July 27, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer's Request for Extraordinary Relief.  Petitioner—Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen Industrial and Allied Workers of America, Loca 166.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

CounterPulse  (20-UC-362338)  San Francisco, CA, July 28, 2026.  The Board denied the Union’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Order Clarifying  Unit as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  The Board agreed with the Acting Regional Director’s conclusion that the Producing Technical Director possesses the authority to effectively recommend hiring.  Union—Industrial Workers of the World, SF Bay Area Branch.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Via 313 Pizza Restaurant II, LLC  (16-RC-300851)  Austin, TX, July 29, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—Restaurant Workers United. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Integra Healthcare Equipment, LLC  (13-RC-371406)  Elmhurst, IL, July 29, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Overruling Objections and Certification of Representative that overruled an objection regarding a Board agent preventing the Employer from challenging two non-determinative voters, as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Employer—Integra Healthcare Equipment, LLC. Petitioner—Teamsters Local Union 781. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Mass General Brigham  (01-RC-354925)  Boston, MA, July 30, 2026. The Board granted the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election, in order to consider the case in conjunction with Essentia Health, 374 NLRB No. 140 (2026). Member Prouty, dissenting, would have denied the Request for Review. Petitioner—Doctors Council, Service Employees International Union Local 10MD. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

NBC Universal Media LLC  (02-RC-364684)  New York, NY, July 30, 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—National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, the Broadcasting and Cable Television Workers Sector of the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC (NABET-CWA). Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

C Cases

United States Postal Service  (05-CA-287508)  Merrifield, VA, July 30, 2026.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Board’s Decision and Order, reported at 374 NLRB No. 132 (2026).  The Board found that the Respondent had not identified any material error or demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration.  The Board rejected the Respondent’s contention that the Board had conflated two different rules and noted that the Respondent is free to maintain a rule restricting any of the conduct in its current rule, so long as the Respondent’s revised rule is not overbroad so as to chill the rights of employees to engage in conduct protected by the Act.  Charge filed by an individual.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated in the decision.

Goodkind Group & Park Lane Hotel, as joint employers  (02-CA-372011)  Manhattan, NY, July 31, 2026.  The Board denied Park Lane Hotel’s Petition to Revoke an investigative subpoena duces tecum in light of the Region’s modifications to the subpoena requests, as the subpoena sought information relevant to the matter under investigation and described with sufficient particularity the evidence sought, and the Petitioner failed to establish any other legal basis for revoking the subpoena. Charge filed by Restaurant Workers Union, Local 1.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.

***

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.