Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 16 - 20, 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

Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.  (20-CA-328308; 374 NLRB No. 62)  March 17, 2026.

In an earlier decision, the Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a test-of-certification case and severed for further consideration the issue of whether the Board should overrule Ex-Cell-O Corp., 185 NLRB 107 (1970) and adopt a remedy that would require employers to compensate employees “for the lost opportunity to engage in collective bargaining at the time and in the manner contemplated by the Act.” After further consideration, the Board declined to depart from its longstanding remedial practice.

Charge filed by International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers, Local 39, AFL-CIO.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

***

Blue School (02-CA-294227 and 02-CA-292782; 374 NLRB No. 63), March 17, 2026.

In an earlier decision, the Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a test-of-certification case and severed for further consideration the issue of whether the Board should overrule Ex-Cell-O Corp., 185 NLRB 107 (1970) and adopt a remedy that would require employers to compensate employees “for the lost opportunity to engage in collective bargaining at the time and in the manner contemplated by the Act.” After further consideration, the Board declined to depart from its longstanding remedial practice.

Charges filed by Local 2110, Technical, Office & Professional Union, UAW.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Floral Leasing Co. d/b/a Stonerise Moundsville  (06-RD-327742)  Moundsville, WV, March 17, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s and Petitioner’s Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Regional Director had dismissed the decertification petition based on her finding that the parties had not bargained for a reasonable amount of time (pursuant to a settlement agreement), the successor bar remained in place, and no question of representation existed.  Petitioner—an individual. Union—United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1776KS, AFL-CIO, CLC.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc.  (12-RM-327039) Tampa, FL, March 18, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election. In denying review, the Board found it unnecessary to consider, as the Regional Director did, whether “special circumstances” warranting deviation from a fleetwide unit were present.  Instead, the Board concluded that the unit in which the Masters, Mates and Pilots demanded recognition—which comprises licensed deck officers, excluding captains, working on Overseas Shipholding Group-branded vessels—was appropriate under unit-determination principles applicable to seagoing personnel because it is a fleetwide unit.  The Board also found that the Employer failed to meet its burden to show that the chief mates are statutory supervisors under Section 2(11).  Employer-Petitioner—Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc.  Union—International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots. Intervenor—Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association District No. 1 PCD, AFL-CIO (MEBA).  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

Alaska Tanker Company, LLC, a subsidiary of OSG Ship Management, Inc.  (19-RC-320760)  Beaverton, OR, March 18, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election. In denying review, the Board did not rely on the Regional Director’s application of American Steel Construction, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 23 (2022), which reinstated Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011), enfd. sub nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013). Instead, the Board found that the unit found appropriate by the Regional Director—which comprises licensed deck officers, excluding captains, working on Alaska Tanker Company-branded vessels—is consistent with the general proposition that units of seagoing personnel should be fleetwide in scope because it is a fleetwide unit.  The Board also found that the Employer failed to meet its burden to show that the chief mates are statutory supervisors under Section 2(11). Petitioner—International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots.  Intervenor—Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association District No. 1 PCD, AFL-CIO.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

HCA–HealthONE LLC, d/b/a Swedish Medical Center  (27-RC-346403) Englewood, CO, March 18, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying Motion for Particulars and Denying Request for Postponement as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United (NNOC/NNU) a/w American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations, AFL-CIO.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.  

LRW Traffic Systems, LLC  (05-RC-364228)  Baltimore, MD, March 18, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision to Hold Representation Petition in Abeyance Pending Investigation of Unfair Labor Charges as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Members Murphy and Mayer stated that they apply extant law in denying the Petitioner’s Request for Review and express no opinion on whether the policy was correctly determined.  Petitioner—Building & Construction Laborers’ Local Union No. 710, a/w Laborers’ International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, CLC.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

Nexstar Media, Inc. d/b/a WJET-TV/WFXP-TV/YourErie.com  (06-RC-335453)  Erie, PA, March 20, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Objection and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, AFL-CIO. Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated. 

C Cases

No Unpublished C Cases Issued.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

Midwest Division - RMC, LLC, d/b/a Research Medical Center, Board No. 14-CA-278811 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 36) (8th Cir. Mar. 18, 2026)

In a published opinion, the Eighth Circuit enforced, in part, the Board’s order that issued against this operator of hospitals, including the Research Medical Center in Kansas City, Missouri.  At that location, the Employer had bargaining relationships with two unions:  Service Employees International Union HCII, Missouri/Kansas Division SEIU, which represented its technical, service, and maintenance employees, and National Nurses Organizing Committee, Missouri & Kansas/National Nurses Union (NNOC), which represented its nurses.

Regarding SEIU, the Board (Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox) found that, prior to the certification of the results of a decertification election conducted in 2021, the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by prematurely withdrawing recognition and thereafter taking a number of actions in repudiation of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. In finding the withdrawal of recognition unlawful, the Board relied on its longstanding rule that “in the decertification context, the change in the basic relationship between the parties and in the parties’ obligation to bargain should not be effective until the date the certification issues,” W.A. Krueger Co., 299 NLRB 915 (1990). Therefore, the Board found the Employer’s actions taken between the election and certification that were in repudiation of its contractual obligations were also unlawful. Regarding NNOC, the Board found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to meet and bargain with NNOC’s designated representatives at a grievance meeting.

On review, the Court held that the Board’s finding that the Employer unlawfully refused to bargain with NNOC’s chosen representatives at the grievance meeting was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law.  However, regarding the Employer’s withdrawal of recognition from SEIU, the Court disagreed with the Board’s reliance on Krueger.  Instead, the Court adopted the Fifth Circuit’s contrary rule that an employer “does not automatically violate the NLRA, but merely proceeds at its own risk, when engaging in unilateral activities before a decertification election’s results are formally validated,” quoting Dow Chemical Co. v. NLRB, 660 F.2d 637 (5th Cir. 1981).  The Court explained that it saw “no basis in the NLRA to distinguish between initial certification and decertification elections,” stating that in an initial certification election, “the employees’ choice to be represented attaches with the vote tally; if the employer does not recognize the union and the election is upheld by the Board, the employer must retroactively bargain with the union. But in the decertification context, Krueger ignores the employees’ choice until the election results are certified.”  Accordingly, the Court denied enforcement of those portions of the Board’s order that sought to remedy that allegation and the Board’s related findings. 

The Court’s opinion is here.

RadNet Management Inc. d/b/a San Fernando Valley Advanced Imaging Center, Board Case No. 31-CA-235878 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 58) (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2026)

In an unpublished opinion that issued on Thursday, March 19, 2026, the Ninth Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against this provider of diagnostic imaging services at various facilities in California, including the San Fernando Valley Advanced Imaging Center. The Board (Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox) found that the Regional Director acted within her authority by revoking a settlement agreement that resolved a complaint that alleged that RadNet had unlawfully laid off an employee at that facility and by reissuing the complaint after RadNet violated the settlement terms.  Further, the Board noted that after the unfair-labor-practice hearing, RadNet did not file exceptions to contest the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that it unlawfully laid off the employee without bargaining with the National Union of Healthcare Workers.  The Board therefore concluded that the lay-off violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).  Subsequently, RadNet filed a motion to reopen the record, arguing that it discovered evidence of the employee’s misconduct that would invalidate the reinstatement and backpay remedies.  The Board denied the motion and stated that such issues could be raised in the compliance proceeding.

On review, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that RadNet breached the settlement agreement and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in approving the Regional Director’s decision to set aside the agreement and reissue the complaint. Similarly, the Court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen the record to introduce evidence of the employee’s alleged misconduct, noting that RadNet’s newly discovered evidence would affect the remedy, not its liability, “and is more appropriately reserved for a later compliance proceeding.”

The Court’s opinion is here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

American Postal Workers-Union 238 Kansas Kaw Valley Area Local  (14–CB–332603; JD–17-26)  Mission, KS.  Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl issued his decision on March 20, 2026. Charge filed by an individual.

***

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