Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of June 16 - 20, 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Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases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No Unpublished R Cases Issued.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No Unpublished C Cases Issued.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
Starbucks Corporation, Board No. 31-CA-299257 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 33) (8th Cir. June 17, 2025)
In a published opinion, the Eighth Circuit remanded the Board’s order that issued against this national coffee retailer operating a store at Cypress and Figueroa streets in Los Angeles for unfair labor practices that occurred in 2022 a few days after Workers Union began an organizing campaign. The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox) found that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(1) when its store manager in a one-on-one meeting threatened an employee with economic reprisals if the store became unionized and interrogated her about the employees’ union activities and sympathies.
The Board found the unlawful threat based on evidence that included the store manager’s statements that employees would lose a pay raise and benefits if the store unionized, that employee benefits would be paused, that it was uncertain if employees would receive the raise that nonunion stores would receive, and discussed how unionization in Canada had backfired for employees. For the unlawful interrogation finding, the Board relied on evidence of the history of Starbucks’ hostility toward unionization, the nature of the information sought, which was the identity of union supporters, the identity of the interrogator, who was the highest ranking management official at the store, the one-on-one nature of the conversation in a back room of the store, and the truthfulness of the employee’s reply, which was neutral given that the employee merely stared back at the store manager.
On review, the Court (Judges Gruender and Benton; Judge Shepherd, dissenting) recognized that the test for unlawful coercion is an objective test under which an employer’s conduct must be examined in light of the totality of the circumstances, and that the relevant question for determining whether a Section 8(a)(1) violation occurred is whether the questioning or remarks reasonably tended to coerce employees not to exercise their right to engage in protected activity. The Court, however, disagreed with the Board’s adoption of a statement made by the Administrative Law Judge that subjective evidence of the speaker’s intent and the effect on the listener is immaterial in assessing alleged Section 8(a)(1) violations. The Court explained that “[w]hile we have never held that employees’ subjective impressions are dispositive, we have also never stated that they are ‘immaterial.’” Accordingly, because the Administrative Law Judge “disclaimed any reliance on [the employee]’s reactions to [store manager]’s statements,” the Court remanded the case for further consideration.
In dissent, Judge Shepard wrote to express his view that the majority’s “quasi-subjective standard is not in line with our body of case law.” He would have found that the Board properly applied its objective test, and that a reasonable mind would find coercion based on the record evidence that “the highest ranking official at the store, sought information about which employee began the union campaign” from the employee, who was “alone, in an employee-only area,” and questioned “for twenty minutes” while sitting in silence.
The Court’s opinion is here.
International Longshore and Warehouse Union and International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 19 (SSA Terminals, LLC), Board No. 19-CD-269624 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 66) (9th Cir. June 18, 2025)
In a published opinion, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded to the Board this case that arose from a jurisdictional dispute between the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 160, Local Lodge 289 (IAM). When SSA Terminals (SSAT) opened a container terminal in the Port of Seattle, it assigned maintenance and repair work at that terminal for the first time. Under their respective collective-bargaining agreements, ILWU and IAM were both equally entitled to perform the work, and both unions demanded that SSAT comply with its contractual obligations. In an earlier proceeding (369 NLRB No. 126), the Board exercised its authority to resolve the dispute under Section 10(k) of the Act and awarded the work to employees represented by IAM.
After ILWU continued to pursue the disputed work, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty) found that ILWU violated Section 8(b)(4)(D). That provision, together with Section 10(k), serves to prevent “economic havoc” and protect employers like SSAT that are caught up in “a quarrel between two groups” of employees.” NLRB v. Radio & Television Broad. Eng’r Union, 364 U.S. 573 (1961). The Board rejected ILWU’s assertion of a work-preservation defense under the Ninth Circuit’s decision in International Longshore & Warehouse Union v. NLRB, 978 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2020) (Kinder Morgan), which the Board distinguished.
On review, the Court (Circuit Judges Thomas and Miller, District Judge Rosenthal sitting by designation) held that the Board’s rejection of the particular work-preservation defense ILWU raised could not be reconciled with the Court’s decision in Kinder Morgan, which, the Court noted, held that “[a] valid work-preservation objective provides a complete defense against alleged violations of section 8(b)(4)(D), as well as against jurisdictional disputes under section 10(k).” Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In a concurring opinion, Judge Miller wrote separately to express his view that Kinder Morgan was wrongly decided.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
WP Company, LLC d/b/a The Washington Post (5-CA-304208; JD-53-25) Washington, D.C. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi issued his decision on June 16, 2025. Charge filed by Washington-Baltimore News Guild, Local N0, 32035 a/w The News Guild, Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.