Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of May 12 - 15, 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Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases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No Unpublished R Cases Issued.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No Unpublished C Cases Issued.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

3484, Inc., and 3486, Inc., as alter egos and/or a single employer, Board No. 27-CA-278463 (373 NLRB No. 28) (10th Cir. May 12, 2025)

In a published opinion, the Tenth Circuit enforced, in all aspects but one, the Board’s order that issued against these Utah-based corporations, which operate film productions in the United States.  The unfair labor practices found by the Board were committed in 2021 after the Employer’s drivers began discussing whether to seek representation by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 399, and later went out on strike in protest of those unfair labor practices.  Specifically, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by coercively questioning two drivers about the Union, instructing one of the drivers not to reveal the questioning to others, threatening that the owner would move production to Canada if the drivers unionized, and refusing to reinstate the drivers after they had engaged in a work stoppage to protest the unlawful coercion directed against them. 

On review, the Court (Judges Hartz and Federico; Judge Eid, dissenting in part), held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings of unlawful coercion, except one interrogation, which it viewed as factually indistinguishable from an in-circuit case where the Court found no violation.  Before the Court, the Employer belatedly raised a number of arguments, including a challenge to the Board’s make-whole remedy, and claims that the Board’s administrative proceedings are contrary to Article III and the Seventh Amendment, all of which the Court held were barred from review under Section 10(e) of the Act.

The Court’s opinion is here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

United States Postal Service (07–CA–300756; JD-41-25) Benton Harbor, MI.  Administrative Law Judge Christine E. Dibble issued her decision on May 13, 2025.  Charge filed by American Postal Workers Union (APWU), AFL–CIO.

Fontainebleau Florida Hotel, LLC d/b/a Fontainebleau Miami Beach (12-CA-328671; JD–43–25) Miami Beach, FL.  Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his decision on May 14, 2025.  Charge filed by an individual.

Alivio Medical Center, Inc. (13-CA-300158; JD–42–25) Chicago, IL and Berwyn, IL.  Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas issued his decision on May 15, 2025.  Charge filed by Service Employees International Union, Healthcare Illinois and Indiana, CTW, CLC.

Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. (19-CA-313715; JD(SF)–11–25) Kent, WA.  Administrative Law Judge Brian D. Gee issued his decision on May 15, 2025.  Charge filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 46.

***

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