Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of June 29 - July 2, 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

Nexstar Media Inc., d/b/a WJET-TV/WFXP-TV/Yourerie.com  (06–CA–343546; 374 NLRB No. 137)  Erie, PA, July 1, 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 Screen Actors Guild—American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, AFL–CIO.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Riverside Healthcare System, L.P., d/b/a Riverside Community Hospital  (21-CA-347056; 374 NLRB No. 139)  Riverside, CA, July 2, 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 of a group of employees, as part of an existing unit.  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, Local 121 RN. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Amazon.com Services Inc.  (29-CA-277198, et al.; 374 NLRB No. 138)  Staten Island, NY, July 2, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) when: 1) a contracted security guard, who was an agent of the Respondent, prohibited an employee from distributing union literature on nonwork time in nonwork areas, surveilled the employee’s union activities, and confiscated union literature from nonwork areas; 2) a second contracted security guard, who was also an agent of the Respondent, created the impression of surveillance of employees’ union activities; and 3) a manager and a human resources employee, in separate discussions, told employees that they could not distribute union literature on nonwork time in nonwork areas and confiscated union literature and, later that same day, another human resources employee prohibited employees from distributing union literature on nonwork time in nonwork areas.  The Board also adopted the judge’s dismissal of the allegation that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging an employee because the evidence did not show that an agent of the Respondent was motivated by discriminatory animus in taking an action that was the proximate cause of the employee’s discharge.

Charges filed by individuals and Amazon Labor Union.  Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito issued her decision on November 21, 2023.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated in the decision.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Total Renal Care, Inc. d/b/a DaVita Visalia Vineyard Dialysis  (32-RC-370127)  Visalia, CA, June 29, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review and Motion to Reopen the Record as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board accordingly denied the Employer’s request for extraordinary relief as moot. Petitioner—Service Employees International Union – United Healthcare Workers West. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Mass General Brigham Incorporated  (01-RC-345183)  Boston, MA, June 29, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election (in which the Regional Director found the petitioned-for multifacility unit of registered nurses and nurse practitioners appropriate), finding that it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—Massachusetts Nurses Association.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Starbucks Corporation  (03-RD-361063)  Niskayuna, NY, June 29, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s and Petitioner’s Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision to Dismiss Petition as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—an individual. Union—Workers United. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

The Queen’s Medical Center and The Queen’s Health System  (20-RC-357834)  San Francisco, CA, June 29, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Self-Determination Election (in which the Regional Director found appropriate the petitioned-for election for a group of RNs to vote to join an existing unit of RNs), finding that it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—Hawai’i Nurses Association, OPEIU Local 50.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Trader Joe’s East Inc.  (13-RC-339478)  Chicago, IL, June 29, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Determinative Challenged Ballot and Objections as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  In denying review, the Board assumed that employee and organizing-committee member was an agent of the Petitioner, but found that his conduct was not objectionable under the standard applicable to party agents.  The Board further found that the Hearing Officer did not abuse her discretion by partially quashing the subpoena issued to the documentary filmmaker, concluding that the subpoena to review video taken by filmmaker to determine whether she filmed voters was a fishing expedition absent evidence that she was the Petitioner’s agent.  Member Mayer concurred, explaining his view that the Hearing Officer should not have quashed the subpoena issued to employee but that the error was harmless.  Petitioner—Trader Joe’s United.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Renal Treatment Centers – California, Inc. d/b/a DaVita Concord Dialysis Center  (32-RC-337328)  Concord, CA, June 30, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Motion for Reconsideration and to Reopen the Record. Petitioner—Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers - West. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

REM Services, Inc. and Transdev Services, Inc., Joint Employers  (16-RC-367048)  Fort Worth, TX, June 30, 2026.  The Board denied the Employers’ Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election (in which the Regional Director found that REM Services, Inc. and Transdev Services, Inc. are joint employers of the petitioned-for employees), finding that it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—Teamsters Local Union No. 988.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

KTLA Television a subsidiary of Nexstar Media Group Inc.  (31-RC-365133)  Los Angeles, CA, June 30, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer's Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision on Objections and Certification of Representative finding it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

C Cases

GE Appliances, a Haier Company   09–CA–332521)  Louisville, KY, July 1, 2026.  The Board denied the Charging Party’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Board’s Decision and Order, reported at 374 NLRB No. 110 (2026).  The Board found that the Charging Party had not identified any material error or demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration   The Board also denied the Charging Party’s motion to reopen the record.  Charge filed by an individual. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

***

Appellate Court Decisions

Nexstar Media Inc., Authorized to Operate Television Station WROC-TV, Board No. 03-CA-332930 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 88) (2d Cir. June 30, 2026).

In an unpublished order that issued in this test-of-certification case, the Second Circuit enforced the Board’s bargaining order that issued against this operator of television stations, including WROC-TV, a local television news station in Rochester, New York.  The Court concluded that the Board did not abuse its discretion by not holding a pre-election hearing because Nexstar had failed to present sufficient evidence of its claim that its producers, who were professional employees, were statutory supervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act.  The Court also found no error in the Board’s overruling of Nexstar’s post-election challenges.  Thus, the Court held that the Board did not err in certifying the election results, and upheld the Board’s finding that Nexstar’s refusal to bargain violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1). 

In the underlying representation case, the National Association of Broadcast Employees & Technicians–Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, filed a petition to represent employees at the Rochester station.  The parties signed a stipulated election agreement which specified that the election would proceed with two separate voting groups, one of non-professional employees, and the other of professional employees.  The agreement provided that certain professional employees would be permitted to vote with the other voting group, but that their ballots would be automatically challenged because Nexstar claimed that they were statutory supervisors. 

After the February 2023 election, and after the challenged ballots procedures were implemented, the ballots were impounded and held for a hearing because the election results were inconclusive. Nexstar then filed election objections based on a variety of claims, which the Regional Director overruled without holding a hearing after determining that the proffered evidence, even if credited, would not justify setting aside the election.  Nexstar filed a Request for Review, which was denied by the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty).  In March 2023, the hearing on the challenged ballots was held, after which the Regional Director found that Nexstar had not met its burden to show that producers possess supervisory authority on the basis that they either assigned or responsibly directed the work of other employees. The Regional Director therefore ordered that the challenged ballots be opened and counted.  Nexstar then filed a second Request for Review, which was denied by the same Board panel.  Thereafter, Nexstar refused to bargain in order to seek court review. 

On review, the Court held that the Board’s finding that Nexstar had failed to carry its burden of proving that the producers were statutory supervisors was supported by substantial evidence.  Specifically, the Court agreed with the Board that the evidence did not support the claim that the producers exercised independent judgment in assigning work to other employees, but instead that their actions did not rise above the level of being routine or clerical in nature.  Regarding the claim that the producers had the authority to responsibly direct the work of other employees, the Court held that the claim failed because there was no record evidence that the producers are held responsible for the performance of other employees.  Lastly, finding no merit to Nexstar’s election objections, the Court enforced the Board’s order in full. 

The Court’s decision is here. 

Kirin Transportation Inc. d/b/a Kirin Transportation, Board No. 29-CA-270485 (reported at 374 NLRB No. 4) (2d Cir. July 2, 2026).

In an unpublished order, the Second Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against this operator of a non-emergency transportation service for elderly residents in and around New York City. In 2020, the Employer began withholding wages from the employees and committed a number of unfair labor practices after an employee and a former coworker filed a complaint seeking unpaid wages and overtime in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York state law.  The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating, threatening, suspending, and then discharging the employee for the statutorily protected activity of filing the collective lawsuit, and by coercively interrogating and threatening her father, who also worked for the Employer, and later discharging him and two other employees after they joined the lawsuit. 

On review, the Court acknowledged that Section 7 of the Act includes the right of employees to collectively file a lawsuit for unpaid wages, and held that the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.  The Court rejected the Employer’s challenges to the Board’s findings because they were based principally on discredited testimony and contrary record evidence. The Court also found no merit to the Employer’s claim that three of the employees, who worked as drivers, were independent contractors, rather than employees protected by the Act.  Agreeing with the Board’s analysis, the Court emphasized that, although there were considerations that weighed in favor of independent-contractor status, including that the employees used their personal vehicles for work, the overwhelming majority of the common-law factors favored a traditional employment relationship.  Those included the Employer’s “extensive ‘control’ over the ‘means and manner’ of the employees’ work, which it exercised by dictating the times and locations of their pickups, monitoring their status throughout the workday, and  prohibiting drivers from taking leave without permission,” as well as the “’unilateral[]’ method by which [the Employer] set drivers’ rates and compensation; the fact that the drivers worked exclusively for [the Employer] and were hired on an ‘indefinite basis’; and the reality that the drivers’ work was at the ‘core’ of [the Employer]’s existence as a transportation provider,” quoting the Board’s analysis.  Having considered the Employer’s remaining arguments and finding them to be without merit, the Court enforced the Board’s order in full. 

The Court’s opinion is here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Atlassian Corp.   (16-CA-324971; JD-43-26)  Austin, TX.  Administrative Law Judge Susannah Merritt issued her decision on July 1, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual. 

                                                                                                  ***

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