Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of May 18 - 23, 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

Alaska Tanker Company, LLC, a subsidiary of OSG Ship Management, Inc.  (19-CA-336972; 374 NLRB No. 112)  Beaverton, OR, May 19, 2026. 

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground that the Respondent failed to raise any issues that were not, or could not have been, litigated in the underlying representation proceeding in which the Union was certified as the bargaining representative.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.  

Charge filed by International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

                                                                                                    ***

Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California  (20-CA-301120 and 20-CA-302339; 374 NLRB No. 111)  Sacramento, CA, May 19, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s noncompliance with the cease-and-desist provisions of the parties’ informal settlement agreement.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unreasonably delaying and failing and refusing to furnish the Union with relevant, requested information and ordered the Respondent to cease and desist.  The Board did not order an affirmative remedy, as the General Counsel conceded that the Respondent had already complied with the affirmative remedy in the previously settled cases.  Member Mayer concurred, stating that the Board should reconsider the precedent supporting this decision. 

Charges filed by Communications Workers of America, District 9, Local 9421.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Kroger Texas L.P.  (16-CA-273805, et al.; 374 NLRB No. 113)  Houston, TX, May 20, 2026. 

The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally ceasing collecting dues and remitting them to the Union pursuant to contractual dues-checkoff provisions when the parties’ collective-bargaining agreements containing those provisions expired.

Charges filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No. 455, AFL–CIO.  Administrative Law Judge Sharon Levinson Steckler issued her decision on July 21, 2023. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated in the decision. 

***

Atlantic American Fire Protection Company, Inc.  (13-CA-309518; 374 NLRB No. 114)  Elgin, IL, May 21, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent engaged in numerous unfair labor practices during the course of a union organizing campaign among its employees.  In light of the Respondent’s serious and widespread unfair labor practices, the Board ordered a range of remedial relief, including a broad cease-and-desist order; notice-reading; reading of an explanation of employee rights under the NLRA; and a bargaining schedule requiring the submission of written bargaining progress reports to the Board’s regional office. 

Charge filed by Sprinkler Fitters Local 281. Administrative Law Judge Michael P. Silverstein issued his decision on May 9, 2024.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated in the decision. 

***

Kuraray America, Inc.  (16-CA-364229; 374 NLRB No.119)  La Porte, TX, May 22, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground that the Respondent failed to raise any issues that were not, or could not have been, litigated in the underlying representation proceeding in which the Union was certified as the bargaining representative.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.

 Charge filed by International Chemical Workers Union Council/United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 900C. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

United States Postal Service  (09-CA-278765; 374 NLRB No. 116)  Cincinnati, OH, May 22, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by putting an employee on emergency placement leave or by discharging him. The Board found it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s finding that the General Counsel failed to sustain the initial burden and instead found that, even assuming arguendo that the General Counsel sustained the initial burden, the Respondent met its defense burden for both allegations.

Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on June 20, 2024. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

                                                                                                   ***

OS-DB-JV-2, LLC   (12-CA-339997; 374 NLRB No. 115)  San Juan, PR, May 22, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to furnish the Union with requested information and by unreasonably delaying in furnishing the Union with other requested information. 

Charge filed by Sindicato Puertorriqueño de Trabajadores y Trabajadoras, Local 1996, Service Employees International Union (SEIU).  Administrative Law Judge Michael P. Silverstein issued his decision on April 23, 2025.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Refugee & Immigrant Care Center for Education and Legal Services  (16-UC-315282)  San Antonio, TX, May 20, 2026.  A Board majority granted the Employer-Petitioner’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order solely with respect to whether the Employer’s Supervising Attorneys, Supervising Legal Assistants, and Refugee Resettlement Program Managers are statutory supervisors on the basis of assigning work. The Board denied review in all other respects. Member Prouty would have denied the request for review in its entirety. Union—Washington-Baltimore News Guild, Local 32035. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

PetSmart, LLC  (01-RC-362178)  Hartford, CT, May 22, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision Overruling Objections and Certification of Representative.  The Board found that even assuming arguendo that a former employee was a supervisor, the conduct alleged to objectionable did not merit a new election.  The Board also found that the Acting Regional Director appropriately applied the third-party conduct standard to the alleged objectionable conduct, as the Employer had not shown that the former employee was a union agent, under common law agency principles. Petitioner—United Food and Commercial Workers International, Local 371. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.  (10-RC-339395)  Vance and Woodstock, AL, May 22, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Objections, Order Directing Hearing, and Notice of Hearing on Objections as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board took administrative notice of the Regional Director’s Order Supplementing Decision on Objections, Order Directing Hearing, and Notice of Hearing on Objections, and Denying Employer’s Motion to Postpone.  Petitioner—International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (UAW).  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

C Cases

Rosewood Care, LLC d/b/a Rosewood Rehabilitation and Nursing  (03-CA-297817 and 03-CA-303582)  Rensselaer, NY,  May 21, 2026. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Board’s Decision and Order reported at 374 NLRB No. 53 (2026). The Board found that the Respondent had not identified any material error or demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration. The Board noted that the Respondent’s arguments, raised in the motion for the first time, were untimely and accordingly were waived. Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer noted that they adhered to their position concerning Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022), vacated in part on other grounds 102 F.4th 727 (5th Cir. 2024), as expressed in the underlying decision but agreed that the Respondent failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration.  Charges filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

RuralMed EMS, LLC  (14-CA-339059 and 14-CA-344912)  Effingham, IL, May 21, 2026.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on the ground that the Respondent had not demonstrated that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  The Board further found that the complaint provides sufficient information to satisfy the notice-pleading requirements of Section 102.15 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. 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.  Charges filed by General Teamsters Local Union No. 26. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Autohouse Tempe, LLC   (28-CA-329697)  Tempe, AZ, May 22, 2026.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  The Board found that the Respondent had not demonstrated that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Charge filed by an individual.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

 

Appellate Court Decisions

No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

No Administrative Law Judge Decisions Issued.

***

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