Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 2 - 6, 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

Titan Medical Center LLC  (14-CA-347704; 374 NLRB No. 51)  Wichita, KS, March 4, 2026.

The Board granted the Acting General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s noncompliance with the provisions of the parties’ bilateral informal settlement agreement.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging an employee for protected concerted activities.  The Board ordered the Respondent to comply with the unmet terms of the settlement agreement.

Charge filed by an individual.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

***

Tremont Chicago, LLC  (13-CA-343007; 374 NLRB No. 54)  Chicago, IL, March 4, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the complaint.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union. 

Charge filed by UNITE HERE Local 1.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

***

Healthy Minds, Inc. and House of Hope of Bastrop, LLC, a Single Integrated Enterprise, and Angela Nichols, James Garland Smith, and Jerry Brown  (15-CA-231767; 374 NLRB No. 56)  Bastrop, LA, March 4, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Partial Default Judgment on the ground that the Respondents failed to file timely answers, or in the case of Respondent Smith, a legally sufficient answer, to certain paragraphs of the compliance specification.  The Board remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director to arrange a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge on the remaining allegations contained in the compliance specification.

Charge filed by an individual.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

                                                                                            ***

Pfizer, Inc.  (10-CA-175860 and 07-CA-176035; 374 NLRB No.55)  Birmingham, AL, March 4, 2026.

The Board reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s supplemental decision to find that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining an arbitration confidentiality policy.  Applying California Commerce Club, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 106 (2020), the Board held that because the confidentiality policy was contained within an arbitration agreement and appropriately limited in scope, it was shielded by the Federal Arbitration Act and was accordingly lawful.  Member Prouty concurred in finding the confidentiality policy lawful, applying California Commerce Club as extant law in the absence of a three-member majority to overrule it, but wrote separately to express his belief that California Commerce Club failed to give sufficient weight to fundamental employee rights under the NLRA and incorrectly concluded that the Federal Arbitration Act must displace the NLRA in this context.

Charges filed by two individuals.  Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his supplemental decision on March 21, 2019.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

                                                                                              ***

Rosewood Care, LLC d/b/a Rosewood Rehabilitation and Nursing  (03-CA-297817 and 03-CA-303582; 374 NLRB No. 53)  Rensselaer, NY, March 4, 2026. 

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) by its actions connected with the Respondent’s efforts to restrict Union organizers’ access to the Respondent’s facility. In the absence of exceptions, the Board also adopted the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) when it discharged an employee because he engaged in protected concerted and union activities.

In so doing, the Board majority found it unnecessary to pass on the Respondent’s exception to the adverse inference drawn by the judge because the adverse inference has no material impact on the violations of Section 8(a)(1) that were found by the judge and adopted by the Board. Member Prouty would deny the Respondent’s exception and affirm the judge’s adverse inference. The Board further found that, contrary to the Respondent’s argument, the judge’s recommended Order merely required the Respondent to grant that access to which it agreed in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement and/or by its past practice, and the Order does not require the Respondent’s part owner to take action in his individual capacity, but instead solely in his official capacity as a part owner of the Respondent.

The Board majority found that the Board’s traditional remedies were sufficient to effectuate the purposes of the Act in this matter and therefore did not include the judge’s recommended notice mailing remedy. Member Prouty would adopt the notice mailing remedy, to which the Respondent did not except, as an appropriate remedy. The Board also ordered the Respondent to rescind the unilateral changes found.

Charges filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.                                           

***

Barista Parlor Germantown, LLC  (10-CA-320196; 374 NLRB No. 57)  Nashville, TN, March 5, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s noncompliance with the provisions of the parties’ bilateral informal settlement agreement.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging employees for their protected, concerted activities. 

Charge filed by an individual.  Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

              ***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

No Unpublished R Cases Issued.

C Cases

Mauser Packaging Solutions  (06-CA-358035)  Oak Brook, IL, March 2, 2026.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, finding that it had not demonstrated that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  The denial was without prejudice to the Respondent’s right to renew its arguments to the Administrative Law Judge and before the Board on exceptions, if appropriate.  Charge filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC. Members Prouty, Murphy, and Mayer participated.

WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post  (05-CA-304158)  Washington, DC, March 5, 2026.  No exceptions having been filed to the January 6, 2026 decision of Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas’ finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions and dismissed the complaint. Charge filed by Washington-Baltimore News Guild, Local No. 32035 a/w The News Guild, Communications Workers of America AFL-CIO, CLC.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

Brown-Forman Corp. d/b/a Woodford Reserve Distillery, Board No. 09-CA-307806 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 145) (6th Cir. Mar. 6, 2026)

In a published opinion, the Sixth Circuit denied enforcement with respect to the Board’s bargaining-order remedy and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Board’s order issued against this company that is engaged in the distilling, bottling, commercial distribution, and retail sale of bourbon at a facility in Versailles, Kentucky, for unfair labor practices committed during an organizing campaign and leading up to an election among the employees working at the facility in 2022.  When the election was held, the tally of ballots showed that the Union, Teamsters Local 551, lost the election on a vote of 14 to 45. 

The Board (Members Kaplan, Prouty, and Wilcox) found that Brown-Forman violated Section 8(a)(1) by announcing wage adjustments to employees as a way of promising them increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment if they rejected the Union as their bargaining representative.  The Board also found that Brown-Forman violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by granting multiple benefits to discourage employees from selecting union representation.  Those benefits included wage adjustments, a merit wage increase to new hires and newly promoted employees, ending the leave policy that required them to save, and then use, five vacation days during the annual end-of-the-year shutdown period, and the distribution of bottles of bourbon. 

Overall, the Board determined that Brown-Forman’s justifications and explanations for the benefit enhancements were not credible and concealed its true, anti-union motive, which management officials laid bare in emails expressing concern over how quickly the campaign had progressed because of employee dissatisfaction with pay.  Lastly, the Board found that Brown-Forman violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union such that a remedial bargaining order was warranted under Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023), reconsideration denied, 372 NLRB No. 157, petitions for review filed, 9th Cir. Nos. 23- 2081, 23-2302, & 23-2377, and oral argument held (Oct. 21, 2024).  Because the Board issued a remedial bargaining order under Cemex, it did not adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that a remedial bargaining order was likewise warranted under NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969). 

On review, the Court held that the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings were supported by substantial evidence.  The Court explained that “there is more than enough evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that Brown-Forman’s velvet glove of benefits was hiding a clenched fist of coercion, interference, and discouragement,” and “that employees took the hint and understood that the benefits were a ‘bribe’ to no longer support the union.”  In doing so, the Court rejected Brown-Forman’s contention that the Board had improperly considered some evidence that arose before the Union had filed a representation petition, noting that “even though the union did not file its election petition before Brown-Forman decided to confer these benefits on its employees, the company’s management anticipated an election was imminent, acknowledging that its efforts to undermine a likely impending election would constitute ‘an intense six weeks.’”  Turning to the remedial bargaining order, the Court stated that “we do not reach the substance of the Cemex standard in this case because the Board announced this significant policy change via an adjudication, and it did so without respecting the bounds of its adjudicatory authority.”  The Court then also stated that, in its view, the Cemex standard “was not derived from the case-specific facts of the contemporaneous adjudication, and the Cemex Board did not create the standard in furtherance of resolving the parties’ dispute.”

The Court’s opinion is here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Valley Radiology, P.A.  (10-CA-324512; JD-14-26)  Fayetteville, NC. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi issued his decision on March 3, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual.

American Automobile Association of Northern California, Nevada and Utah  (32-CA-280838, et al.; JD-15-26)  Los Angeles, CA.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on March 4, 2026.  Charges filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 665.

                                                                                            ***

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