Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of June 9 - 13, 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Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases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No Unpublished R Cases Issued.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No Unpublished C Cases Issued.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

Troy Grove, a Division of RiverStone Group Inc., Vermillion Quarry, a Division of RiverStone Group, Inc., Board No. 25-CA-276061 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 94) (D.C. Cir. June 13, 2025)

In a published opinion, the D.C. Circuit enforced, in part, the Board’s order that issued against this mining company that operates sand and stone quarries in Illinois, where it employs equipment operators and maintenance employees in a unit represented by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO.  The Board (Members Kaplan, Wilcox, and Prouty) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by issuing temporary lay-off notices to two employees. Further, the Board (Member Kaplan, dissenting) found that, while bargaining for a successor contract and prior to reaching impasse, the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by announcing that it would unilaterally implement its pension fund proposal. Thereafter, the Employer filed a petition for review contesting the unfair labor practices, the Board cross-applied for enforcement, and the Union filed a petition arguing for additional remedies.

On review, the Court disagreed with the Board’s finding that the parties had not reached an impasse in contract negotiations.  Viewing the evidence differently, the Court stated that the parties “met face-to-face at least 26 times over a five-year period,” and that during the second year of their negotiations, the Employer presented “its last, best offer to withdraw from the pension fund,” to which the Union responded by calling a strike lasting 3 years—a fact which the Court found demonstrated “’the importance of the issue’ about which the parties disagreed,” quoting Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475 (1967).  Having rejected the Board’s no-impasse finding, the Court did not reach the Union’s argument that the Board’s remedies were insufficient.  Lastly, the Court upheld the Board’s finding that the Employer unlawfully issued the temporary lay-off notices.  The Court explained that although the Employer’s “alternate interpretation of the evidence may be possible,” under substantial-evidence review, “the Board’s interpretation of the facts is reasonably defensible.” 

The Court’s opinion is here.

                                                                                               ***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

ExxonMobil Chemical Company, ExxonMobil Chemical Company (Lab), and ExxonMobil Fuels & Lubricants (16–CA-229107, et al.; JD(SF)–14–25) Baytown, TX.  Administrative Law Judge Amita Baman Tracy issued her decision on June 11, 2025.  Charges filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union Local 13-2001.

YAPP USA Automotive Systems, Inc. (07–CA–320369 and 07–CA–336485; JD–52–25) Detroit, MI.  Administrative Law Judge G. Rebekah Ramirez issued her decision on June 11, 2025.  Charges filed by Local 174, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO.

***

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