Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of May 11 - 15, 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

Tabu Group LLC d/b/a Tabu Bistro Lounge  (16-CA-327604; 374 NLRB No. 107)  McAllen, TX, May 12, 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 harassing and threatening an employee and reducing her compensation because she discussed with her coworkers their terms and conditions of employment and then raised their collective concerns to the Respondent.  The Board ordered the Respondent to comply with the unmet terms of the settlement agreement.

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

***

Apple, Inc.  (32-CA-306609; 374 NLRB No. 109)  Sunnyvale, CA, May 13, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of the General Counsel’s complaint which alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening, coercing, interrogating, disciplining and discharging the Charging Party. 

Charge filed by an individual.   Administrative Law Judge Gerald Michael Etchingham issued his decision on January 7, 2025.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated in the decision. 

***

 Laborers International Union of North America, Local 872  (28-CB-239339, et al.; 374 NLRB No. 108)  Las Vegas, NV, May 13, 2026. 

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of the General Counsel’s complaint which alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by violating its duty of fair representation through its operation of a union hiring hall by maintaining an unwritten practice of excusing strikes that served no representational function and failing to notify hiring hall users of that practice; further violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) through email statements/letters; and violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) by failing to respond to the Charging Parties’ requests for information about registering for the hiring hall. 

Charges filed by two individuals. Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone issued her decision on July 11, 2024. Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer participated. Member Prouty, who is recused, was a member of the panel but did not participate in the decision on the merits.

                                                                                                  ***

GE Appliances, a Haier Company (09–CA–332521; 374 NLRB No. 110)  Louisville, KY, May 14, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of the General Counsel’s complaint which alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) when it issued a written warning to and subsequently discharged the Charging Party. The Board further denied the Respondent’s Motion to Strike the Charging Party’s exceptions for failing to comply with the Board’s Rules and Regulations but granted the motion as to additional supporting materials.

Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Kimberly R. Sorg-Graves issued her decision on August 12, 2025. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Leo Marine Services  (19-RC-330385)  Seattle, WA, May 11, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Siena Farms, LLC  (01-RC-332190)  Sudbury, MA, May 14, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—Siena United Farm Workers.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Pennsylvania American Water Company (06-RC-382228)  Pittsburgh, PA, May 15, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s request for a stay of the election.  Petitioner—Pennsylvania American Water Independent Union.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

BrandSafway, LLC  (09-RC-356583)  Anacortes, WA, May 15, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of a Regional Director’s decision on Challenged Ballots and Objections.  The Board rejected the Employer’s argument that the Regional Director erred by determining voter eligibility under the Daniel-Steiny construction industry criteria, instead of non-construction industry criteria. The Board agreed with the Regional Director that the stipulated election agreement did not include an explicit agreement not to apply Daniel-Steiny.  Petitioner—International Association of Heat & Frost Insulators & Allied Workers, Local 7.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

C Cases

International Alliance of Theatrical State Employees and Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (IATSE), Local 5   (09-CB-318209; JD-19-26)  Cincinnati, OH, May 15, 2026.  No exceptions having been filed to the April 2, 2026 decision of Administrative Law Judge Sarah Karpinen’s 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 an individual.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

Starbucks Corporation, Board No. 03-CA-296757 (reported at 374 NLRB No. 8) (5th Cir. May 14, 2026). 

In a published opinion, the Fifth Circuit denied enforcement of the Board’s order that issued against Starbucks for unfair labor practices associated with two of its stores in the Albany, New York area after employees began organizing and voted to join Workers United in 2022.  The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox) found, in relevant part, that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by disciplining and discharging an employee who was a lead organizer of the campaign.  In applying Wright Line, the Board found no merit to Starbucks’ affirmative defense that it would have discharged the employee even absent his protected activities because of his use of profanity in speaking about a coworker and other infractions.  On review, the Court concluded that the Board had not adequately considered contradictory record evidence when it rejected that defense.  Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. 

The Court’s opinion is here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

WestRock Services LLC   (32-CA-329521, et al.; JD(SF)–11–26) Seaside, CA.  Administrative Law Judge John T. Giannopoulos issued his decision on May 12, 2026.  Charges filed by Teamsters Local 856. 

***

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