Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of May 25 - 31, 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

Nitro Construction Services  (09-CA-313196 and 09–CA–323836 ; 374 NLRB No. 120)  Nitro, WV, May 28, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by laying off two employees due to their protected activities. The Board also adopted the judge’s dismissal of the allegation that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3), (4), and (1) by subsequently refusing to hire one of the employees.

Charges filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter issued his decision on October 30, 2024. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Blick Art Materials, LLC  (13-RC-318409)  Chicago, IL, May 26, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election; the Regional Director’s Supplemental Decision Overruling Certain Objections, Order Directing Hearing, and Notice of Hearing on Objections; and the Regional Director’s Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1546. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Nexstar Media Group Inc., d/b/a Newsnation  (13-RM-357504)  Chicago, IL, May 27, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Overruling Objections and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—Directors Guild of America, Inc. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Nexstar Media Corporation d/b/a NewsNation  (05-RC-358137)  Washington, D.C.,  May 27, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer also rejected the Employer’s contention that the election must be set aside based on the Board’s holding in Amazon.com Services, 373 NLRB No. 136 (2024), an unfair labor practice case, but expressed no view on whether that case was correctly decided.  Petitioner—Local Union 1200 Electrical Workers, IBEW, AFL-CIO.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

MHM Health Professionals, LLC d/b/a Centurion Professionals  (05-RC-356811)  Baltimore, MD, May 27, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Supplemental Decision Overruling Objections and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East a/w Service Employees International Union, SOC. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

Adventist Healthcare, Inc. and Reginald S. Lourie Center for Infants and Young Children Inc. d/b/a The Lourie Center for Children’s Social and Emotional Wellness, a single integrated employer  (05-RC-328467)  Rockville, MD, May 28, 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.  The Board agreed with the Regional Director’s finding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) did not exempt the Employer from the Board’s jurisdiction as a religiously-affiliated subsidiary of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.  Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer acknowledge the Board’s decision in Ukiah Valley Medical Center, 332 NLRB 602 (2000) as the controlling precedent, but stated that the courts, not the Board, will have the final say as to this issue.  Member Prouty concurred, but wrote separately to highlight why the Employer is not exempt under RFRA.  Petitioner—1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East a/w Service Employees International Union.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

C Cases

University of Dayton  (09-CA-362228)  Dayton, OH, May 26, 2026.  No exceptions having been filed to the April 10, 2026 decision of Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan’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

Vermont Information Processing, Inc. (VIP), Board No. 03-CA-301055 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 131) (D.C. Cir. May 26, 2026).

In a published opinion, the D.C. Circuit enforced, in part, the Board’s order that issued against this business in Colchester, Vermont that builds software for the beverage industry.  The Board (Chairman McFerran, Members Prouty and Wilcox) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging four employees who engaged in protected concerted activity that included creating, sharing, and communicating about a salary-sharing spreadsheet. 

The employee who created and disseminated the salary-sharing spreadsheet was discharged first.  The other three employees were discharged after they commented in chats about the first employee’s discharge, the spreadsheet, and other working conditions.  The underlying complaint alleged that the employees engaged in protected concerted activity “by creating and disseminating of a spreadsheet where employees

could view and share salary information.”  The Administrative Law Judge found that the concerted activity of the three later-discharged employees was for “their instant messaging chats about the spreadsheet and [the first employee]’s termination,” which were activities that the judge found “inextricably linked to their roles in creating and disseminating the spreadsheet.”  On exceptions, the Board clarified that the relevant protected concerted activity that the three later-discharged employees were discharged for was “their online chat communications about the salary spreadsheet, workplace conditions, and frustration over [the first employee]’s recent discharge.” 

On review, the Court upheld the Board’s finding that the Employer unlawfully discharged the employee who created and disseminated the salary-sharing spreadsheet.  The Court noted that it has recognized that the NLRA’s protections extend to salary sharing among employees, citing Banner Health System v. NLRB, 851 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 2017), and that in this case, “it is undisputed that the General Counsel has satisfied the first step of the Wright Line framework.”  Rejecting the Employer’s shifting explanations for the discharge, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that the discharge was triggered by management’s discovery of the salary-sharing spreadsheet, and that within 90 minutes of discovering the spreadsheet, management disabled his account, fired him, and took down the spreadsheet.  The Court then explained that the Employer’s “contrary arguments rely on an alternative view of the facts that the Board reasonably rejected.”

However, the Court did not uphold the Board’s findings that the Employer unlawfully discharged the other three employees. Instead, it held that the Board impermissibly found the violations on the basis of uncharged conduct, citing the standard of Pergament United Sales, Inc. v. NLRB, 920 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1990).  The Court stated that the Administrative Law Judge had not erred in his description of the concerted activity at issue, explaining that “[w]hen a group of employees builds and circulates a spreadsheet, the participants necessarily will discuss that common endeavor,” and “when management fires one member of the group for his actions related to that spreadsheet, his compatriots’ discussion of what happened is an extension of the group’s collaboration on the spreadsheet.” The Court then stated that the Board’s enlargement of the concerted activity to include “online chat communications about . . . workplace conditions,” “stretched the charged conduct beyond its breaking point,” because “’workplace conditions’ is a far-reaching category that can encompass anything from salaries to cafeteria options to interpersonal office dynamics.”  Looking to the record evidence, the Court noted that the chats “covered a wide range of topics, some of which do not appear ‘closely connected to the subject matter of the complaint.’” 

Lastly, the Court enforced the challenged remedy in the Board’s order that requires reinstatement of the employee it held was unlawfully discharged, and found that the Employer had not preserved its challenge to the “make-whole financial remedy” ordered under Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022), enforcement denied on other grounds, 102 F.4th 727 (5th Cir. 2024).

The Court’s opinion is here.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Carter BloodCare (16-CA-345182; JD(SF)–12–26)  Bedford, TX.  Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued his decision on May 29, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual. 

Starbucks Corporation  (19-CA-297589, et al.; JD-32-26)  Seattle, WA.  Administrative Law Judge Renée D. McKinney issued her decision on May 29, 2026.  Charges filed by Workers United Labor Union International, a/w Service Employees International Union.

Amazon.com Services LLC  (20-CA-353627, et al.; JD-33-26)  San Francisco, CA.  Administrative Law Judge Michael P. Silverstein issued his decision on May 29, 2026.  Charges filed by Teamsters Amazon National Negotiating Committee, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. 

Civic Influencers, Inc.  (05-CA-345478, et al.; JD–34–26)  Lewes, DE.  Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on May 29, 2026.  Charges filed by United Professional Organizers. 

***

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