Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of November 10 - 14, 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Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases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No Unpublished R Cases Issued.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No Unpublished C Cases Issued.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

PG Publishing Co., Inc. d/b/a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Board No. 06-CA-248017 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 93) (3d Cir. Nov. 10, 2025)

In an unpublished opinion, the Third Circuit enforced in full the Board’s order that issued against this publisher of a print and electronic newspaper in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where a unit of its editorial staff has been represented by the Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh, CWA Local 38061, under a series of collective-bargaining agreements for over 20 years.  Under the contract that expired in 2017, health insurance was provided through the Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Welfare Fund, later known as the Employment Partners Benefits Fund.  During negotiations for a successor contract, the Employer sought far-ranging control over terms and conditions of employment, including healthcare benefits, proposed that it transition from the Fund to a company healthcare plan, and maintained it should be able to change or terminate healthcare coverage at will. In 2020, the Employer presented a final offer in which it continued to seek unfettered discretion over matters such as healthcare benefits.  Thereafter, the Employer announced that it believed the parties were at a bargaining impasse and unilaterally implemented many of the terms of its final offer, including replacing the Fund with its own healthcare plan that it could alter or discontinue at any time. 

The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Prouty and Wilcox) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally implementing portions of its final offer absent a lawful bargaining impasse, and by bargaining in overall bad faith by making proposals that effectively required the Guild to cede its bargaining rights and representational function, and retain for itself unilateral control over virtually all significant terms and conditions of employment.  The Board also found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by creating the impression that employees’ union activity was under surveillance when security guards it hired appeared to take photographs of participants at union rallies.  The Board’s remedies included a bargaining order, restoration of healthcare benefits and other unilateral changes, make-whole relief for harmed employees and employee negotiators for their lost earnings, compensation for the Guild for its bargaining expenses, and the payment of delinquent contributions to the benefit funds. 

On appeal, prior to the Court’s merits determination, the Board sought and obtained an injunction for interim relief under Section 10(e) of the Act that required the Employer to restore the employees’ healthcare benefits.  After the Employer did not comply with that Court order, the Board brought a motion for contempt.  Subsequently, in its merits decision, the Court upheld the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings as supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law.  On the finding of bad-faith bargaining, the Court concluded, as the Board did, that the Employer’s proposals “as a whole would have required the Guild to cede . . . the most fundamental of employment terms,” and that employees “would have more rights working without a contract than by accepting all of [the Employer]’s proposals.”  On the unlawful impasse finding, the Court noted that in assessing whether a declaration of impasse was lawful under Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475 (1967), the factor that is “particularly important” is whether “the asserted deadlock is caused by bad faith by one of the parties,” quoting Indus. Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 320 F.2d 615 (3d Cir. 1963), and that here that factor was met by the Employer’s overall bad-faith in bargaining.  Upholding also the Board’s finding that the Employer created the impression that employees’ union activity was under surveillance, the Court enforced the Board’s order in full.  In a separate order, the Court continued the requirement of its Section 10(e) injunction that healthcare benefits be restored. 

The Court’s opinion is here.

***

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.