Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of May 4 - 8, 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

ADT, LLC  (09-CA-286214, et al.; 374 NLRB No. 104)  Louisville and Lexington, KY, May 5, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by: (1) withdrawing recognition from the Union and failing and refusing to bargain with it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of unit employees; (2) failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union before unilaterally changing wages, overtime, job titles, pay periods, leave accrual, and attendance, and applying a compensation program and other benefits; (3) failing to deduct and remit dues to the Union during the term of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement and after the expiration of the agreement; (4) failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith with the Union by failing and refusing to furnish or delaying in timely providing the Union with information requested on August 25, 2021, and between August 25 and October 8, 2021; (5) promising employees increased benefits, implementation of certain benefits, and improved terms and conditions of employment if they got rid of the Union; (6) soliciting the decertification of the Union by preparing a decertification petition and providing it to employees to sign and to solicit other employees to sign; (7) assisting in the anti-union activities of unit employees by notifying employees of others who wanted to sign the decertification petition; and (8) bypassing the Union and dealing directly with employees.  In addition to ordering the remedies recommended by the judge, the Board ordered the Respondent to make the Union whole for dues it would have received but for the Respondent’s conduct; process all grievances pending at the time of the Respondent’s unlawful withdrawal; and require supervisors and managers to attend the notice reading.

Charges filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 369, AFL-CIO.  Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on December 23, 2022.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

LSRI d/b/a Lone Star Rebar Installers  (10-CA-336223, et al.; 374 NLRB No. 105)  Ellabell, GA, May 5, 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)(1) by discharging employees for engaging in protected, concerted activity and by threatening to take adverse action against employees for engaging in protected, concerted activity and by telling employees that they did not have the right to engage in such activity. 

Charges filed by individuals.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Gretna Racing, LLC, d/b/a Magic City Casino  (12-CA-331395; 374 NLRB No. 106)  Miami, FL, May 7, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to furnish the Union with the opportunity to view requested relevant video surveillance footage of an incident during a housekeeping department meeting that led to the discipline of two unit employees and a resulting grievance.  The Board also rejected the Respondent’s argument that the information request was moot, finding that the Respondent failed to meet its burden of establishing that the Union no longer needed the information.  Member Prouty joined his colleagues, but noted that in his view, the Union’s first request was for the video to be provided to the Union’s representative, the standard remedy for such violation being to furnish the Union with a copy of the surveillance video.

Charge filed by UNITE HERE Local 355, AFL-CIO.  Administrative Law Judge Sarah Karpinen issued her decision on December 6, 2024.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Laboratory Corporation  (19-RD-383048)  Silverton, OR, May 5, 2026. The Board denied the Union’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board denied the Union’s request for extraordinary relief as moot. Union—Oregon Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals, American Federation of Teachers, Local 5017. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Neil Jones Food Company/TomaTek  (32-RC-330891)  Oakland, CA, May 6, 2026. The Board denied the Intervenor’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s order denying the Intervenor’s Motion to Dismiss the petition and Decision on Objections and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—Teamsters Joint Council 7 and its Affiliated Local Unions; Intervenor—DC2, Local 388-M, a/w PPPWU.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

GVC Ltd.  (02-RC-369068)  Bronx, NY, May 6, 2026. The Board denied the Employer's and Petitioner's Requests for Review of the Regional Director's letter blocking the petition finding they raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—Local 621 United Construction Trades and Industrial Employees Local 621.  Intervenor— Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.  

Rhode Island CVS Pharmacy, LLC  (01-RC-339980)  Wakefield, RI, May 6, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision Overruling Objections and Certification of Representative because the evidence proffered in the Employer’s offer of proof—an employee’s quote in a post-election press release and his solicitation for the Union from another eligible voter during the critical period—did not sufficiently allege facts that, if credited at a hearing, would establish objectionable prounion conduct under Harborside Healthcare, Inc., 343 NLRB 906 (2004), and its progeny. Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer note that they apply Harborside Healthcare as extant precedent and would be willing to reconsider it in a future appropriate case.  Petitioner—Pharmacy Guild a/w International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

C Cases

No Unpublished C Cases Issued.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

United States Postal Service (12-CA-316287 and 12-CA-330861; JD-26-26) Gainesville and Lake Mary, FL.  Administrative Law Judge Benjamin W. Green issued his decision on May 6, 2026.  Charges filed by individuals.

Detrex Corporation, a Subsidiary of the Elco Corp., and a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Italmatch USA Corp.  (08-CA-343335; JD-29-26)  Ashtabula, OH.  Administrative Law Judge Susannah Merritt issued her decision on May 6, 2026.  Charge filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC. 

Liberty Auto City, Inc.  (13-CA-330556; JD–30–26)  Libertyville, IL.  Administrative Law Judge Lisa Friedheim-Weis issued her decision on May 8, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual.

Kroger Fulfillment Network  (09-CA-353140 and  09-CA-355697; JD-28-26)  Louisville, KY.  Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on May 8, 2026.  Charges filed by General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 89. 

United Parcel Service, Inc.  (09-CA-342136; JD-31-26)  Louisville, KY.  Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his decision on May 8, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual.

***

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