Skip to main content


  1. Home
  2. Cases & Decisions

Cases and Decisions


Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of November 20 - 24, 2023

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

United Parcel Service, Inc.  (06-CA-143062; 382 NLRB No. 158)  North Appollo, PA, November 21, 2023.

On remand from the Third Circuit Court, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Prouty; Member Kaplan, dissenting) reversed its finding in United Parcel Service, 369 NLRB No. 1 (2019) (UPS I), that it was appropriate to defer to the joint grievance panel's decision upholding an employee’s discharges from employment with the Respondent.  The Board accepted, as the law of the case, the court’s enforcement of the deferral standard adopted in UPS I.  As instructed by the court, however, the Board reconsidered UPS I’s analysis of one element of the deferral standard: the question of whether the joint grievance panel proceedings were fair and regular.  After briefing by the parties and amici, the Board found that the evidence demonstrated significant conflicts of interest between the employee – a vehement and active union dissident, who opposed the Union’s and the Respondent’s negotiated collective-bargaining agreement and who campaigned for union office against a longtime incumbent – and the joint grievance panel representatives of both the Union and the Respondent, all of whom had participated in the contract negotiations, as well as between the employee and his own joint grievance panel representative, the business agent against whom he had campaigned. After assessing the conflicts of interests and longstanding Board precedent, the majority concluded that the proceedings were not fair and regular, and thus the deferral standard was not met.  The Board therefore considered on the merits the allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by twice discharging the employee for his protected conduct.  The Board adopted, with some bolstering and application of updated precedent, the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent had violated the Act as alleged.  The Board, however, modified the remedies recommended by the judge, finding that the employee’s post-discharge misconduct did not preclude his reinstatement and full backpay.

Member Kaplan dissented, arguing that the Board majority failed to apply the correct standard for determining whether the proceedings were fair and regular based on conflicts of interests – specifically, by not finding that an “actual conflict,” rather than merely an “apparent conflict,” was required – and further concluding that the facts did not demonstrate actual conflicts.  Member Kaplan, therefore, would have affirmed UPS I’s deferral to the joint grievance proceedings.

Charge filed by an individual.  Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter issued his decision on November 25, 2016.  Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan and Prouty participated.


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

Johns Manville Corporation, Board Case No. 08-CA-270764 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 45) (5th Cir. decided November 21, 2023).

In an unpublished opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this manufacturer and warehouser of building products at facilities in Waterville and Maumee, Ohio, where its employees are represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 20.  In 2020, a grievance was filed alleging that the Employer was violating the collective-bargaining agreement by using non-unit employees to perform unit work at two third-party warehouses.  After gathering personal observations of warehouse operations, analysis of bills of lading, and interviews that supported the grievance’s allegation, the Union requested information that included contracts between the Employer and the third-party facilities and related correspondence.  The Employer refused to provide the information.  The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to provide the requested information, which the Board determined was relevant and necessary to the Union’s representational duties.

On review, the Court agreed with the Board.  The Court explained that the Union had a legitimate purpose for requesting the information to determine “if it was prudent and appropriate to file and proceed with a grievance,” and had “a vested interest in monitoring the collective bargaining agreement to ensure that the employer remains in compliance.”  The Court noted that the Union had offered objective evidence sufficient to support its reasonable belief that bargaining-unit work had been subcontracted in violation of the contract.  Further, the Court held that the requested information had a logical relationship to the Union’s representational duties because the information sought would reveal the type of work that had been moved to the third-party warehouses, the extent of the Employer’s business relationship with the warehouses, and reveal whether a transfer of bargaining-unit work had taken place.

The Court’s opinion is here.


Administrative Law Judge Decisions Services, Inc.  (29-CA-277198, et al.; JD(NY)-20-23)  Brooklyn, NY.  Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito issued her decision on November 21, 2023.  Charges filed by individuals and Amazon Labor Union.

Louisville & Jefferson County Public Defender Corporation  (09-CA-291555, et al.; JD-78-23)  Jefferson County, KY. Administrative Law Judge Melissa M. Olivero issued her decision on November 24, 2023.  Charges filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (IBEW), Local 369.

International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 1694, AFL-CI0 (GT USA Wilmington, LLC)  (04-CB-280810; JD-77-23)  Wilmington, DE.  Administrative Law Judge Susannah Merritt issued her decision on November 24, 2023.  Charge filed by an individual.


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