Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of July 7 - July 11, 2025
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
No Published Decisions Issued.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
No Unpublished R Cases Issued.
C Cases
No Unpublished C Cases Issued.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Apple Inc., Board No. 02-CA-295979 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 52) (5th Cir. July 7, 2025)
In a published opinion, the Fifth Circuit denied enforcement of the Board’s order that issued against Apple for unfair labor practices at its World Trade Center store in New York City. In 2021, after store employees formed an employee-organizing committee to join the Communication Workers of America, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox) found that Apple violated Section 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating an employee about his protected activity and union views, and unlawfully confiscated union flyers from the employee breakroom and disparately enforced its solicitation and distribution policy.
On review, the Court (Circuit Judges Richman, Willett, and Douglas) held that neither violation was supported by substantial evidence. Regarding the interrogation, the Court considered the record evidence relevant to the eight factors of Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984), as stated in Renew Home Health v. NLRB, 95 F.4th 231 (5th Cir. 2024). The Court, however, disagreed with the Board that, on balance, the factors supported a finding that the conversation that ensued when the employee was approached and questioned by the senior store supervisor was unlawful. The Court cited the absence of evidence that the supervisor, or any other supervisor, harbored anti-union animus or made threats of reprisal, and faulted the Board for not considering the supervisor’s “unrefuted testimony” that “she expressly reaffirmed [the employee]’s right to discuss unionization.” Rather, in the Court’s view, the totality of the circumstances indicated that the conversation fell in the category of “casual and moderate inquiries,” which are lawful, “absent evidence indicating that the employee has reason to consider the inquiries a threat of reprisals.” The Court distinguished the cases that the Board relied on, stating that they involved “markedly different circumstances.”
The Court reached a similar result on the Board’s finding that Apple unlawfully removed union literature from the employee breakroom. The Court agreed with Apple’s contention that its actions did not have the intent to single out union literature for removal, but instead were consistent with its general housekeeping policy and non-solicitation policy. In the Court’s view, the record evidence instead indicated that Apple enforced its policies “with equal zeal” across all written materials, and had applied the same policies to restaurant menus, personal invitations, and promotional flyers for local events. The Court rejected the Board’s countervailing evidence of two instances, stating that such “isolated lapses in clearing written materials from a breakroom—without more—do not support a finding of discriminatory intent in removing union literature.”
In a concurring opinion, Judge Douglas wrote separately to state her view that Apple’s non-solicitation policy was sufficient for finding the removal of literature was lawful, and would have found no reason to reach the general housekeeping policy.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Foxy Loxy Print Gallery & Café, LLC, Foxy Loxy Bakery, LLC, Henny Penny Art Space & Café, and Fox & Fig, LLC, a single employer (10-CA-323297, et al.; JD–55–25) Savannah, GA. Administrative Law Judge Renée D. McKinney issued her decision on July 9, 2025. Charges filed by Service Employees International Union.
Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Inc. and The Ohio Bell Telephone Company (25–CA–285855 and 09–CA–286149; JD-56-25) Indianapolis, IN. Administrative Law Judge Kimberly Sorg-Graves issued her decision on July 10, 2025. Charges filed by Communication Workers of America Local 4900, a/w Communications Workers of America, AFL–CIO and Communication Workers of America Local 4320, a/w Communications Workers of America, AFL–CIO.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.