Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of June 2 - 6, 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Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases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No Unpublished R Cases Issued.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No Unpublished C Cases Issued.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
Garten Trucking LC, Board No.10-CA-304929 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 64) (4th Cir. June 2, 2025)
In a published opinion, the Fourth Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against this transporter of paper products and other goods from a facility in Covington, Virginia. In doing so, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the finding by the Board (then-Member Kaplan, and Members Prouty, and Wilcox) that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling employees that they would have already received wage increases if it were not for their union activities during an ongoing organizing campaign.
In 2021, the Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers began a campaign to represent about 109 employees at the Covington facility. After an election was held and the Union lost, it filed objections alleging that conduct by the Employer had tainted the election results, and also filed unfair-labor-practice charges. The objections and charges were consolidated and proceeded to a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Meanwhile, the Union continued its organizing efforts, which included handing out flyers, one of which stated that the Union would advocate for raises for all employees. That evening, the company owner posted a response to the flyer on a computer application that the Employer uses to communicate with employees about therefore work matters, which ended with this statement: “As a matter of fact if it wasn’t for [the Union] trying to steal money out of your paychecks you would already have your raises.” The Board found that statement unlawful because it would tend to coerce reasonable employees in the exercise of their statutory organizational rights.
On review, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding. The Court concluded that employees could reasonably interpret the Employer’s statement “as a real threat not to grant future wages if there was a union presence,” and that the statement was unlawfully coercive, and not a lawful expression under Section 8(c) that “employees would fare better if they were not unionized.” Assessing the totality of the circumstances, the Court explained that the owner could “easily withhold future wages on a whim, and his employees would readily know this.” Further, the Court noted that by “linking employees’ raises to the activities of the Union, [the owner] improperly implied that union efforts had previously impacted wages and that future organizing activity would have the same negative effect.”
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Valley Hospital Medical Center, Inc. d/b/a Valley Hospital Medical Center (28–CA–272658, et al.; JD‒50‒25) Las Vegas, NV. Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his decision on June 4, 2025. Charges filed by Culinary Workers Union, Local 226, a/w UNITE HERE International Union, Service Employees International Union, Local 1107, and an individual.
Entergy Operations, Inc. (16-CA-328659; JD(SF)–13–25) Francisville and Killona, LA. Administrative Law Judge Brian D. Gee issued his decision on June 5, 2025. Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2286.
KIPP Academy Charter School (02-CA-294235, et al.; JD-51-25) New York, NY. Administrative Law Judge Michael P. Silverstein issued his decision on June 6, 2025. Charges filed by United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.