Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of November 3 - 7, 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Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases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No Unpublished R Cases Issued.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No Unpublished C Cases Issued.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

Riverside Healthcare System, L.P., A Limited Partnership, and Columbia Riverside, Inc., The General Partner d/b/a Riverside Community Hospital, Board No. 21-CA-261288 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 120) (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2025) 

In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit enforced in large part the Board’s order that issued against these acute-care Hospitals in Southern California for unfair labor practices committed in 2020 during negotiations for collective-bargaining agreements covering three units of registered nurses and a unit of professional employees represented by Service Employees International Union, Local 121 RN.  Specifically, the Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Wilcox; Member Kaplan, dissenting in part) found that the Hospitals violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally implementing a pandemic pay program, and subsequently rescinding that program for the professional unit, by unilaterally withholding the 2020 cost-of-living pay increase for the professional employees, and by unilaterally implementing new policies concerning storage, access, and usage of N95 masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE).  The Board also found a violation of Section 8(a)(1) for threatening the professional employees with adverse consequences if they unionized. 

On review, the Court held that the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, except for the finding that there was an obligation to bargain over the new policies for N95 masks and other PPE. On that finding, the Court disagreed with the Board and held that the record established that “an exigency justified the immediate implementation of a new PPE policy when the COVID-19 crisis began.”

The Court’s opinion is here.

Home Depot USA, Inc., Board No. 18-CA-273796 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 25) (8th Cir. Nov. 6, 2025)

In a published opinion, the Eighth Circuit denied enforcement of the Board’s order that issued against this operator of a nationwide chain of home-improvement stores with a store in New Brighton, Minneapolis, where the Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty; Member Kaplan, dissenting) found that Home Depot engaged in violations of Section 8(a)(1).  Specifically, the Board found that Home Depot unlawfully directed an employee to remove “BLM,” a reference to Black Lives Matter, from their apron, applied its dress code to prohibit the marking, and constructively discharged the employee by requiring its removal as a condition of continued employment. 

On review, the Court first “assume[d] without deciding the Board correctly concluded on this record that [the employee]’s actions were protected under Section 7 and Home Depot’s order to remove [the] BLM message was otherwise invalid.”  Then, in assessing whether Home Depot was justified in enforcing its dress code rule prohibiting the employee’s workplace display of “BLM” on the apron, the Court determined that, in its view, Home Depot had carried its burden of demonstrating it had a legitimate and substantial business justification in restricting that otherwise protected display given the “unique circumstances” of the case.  Those circumstances noted by the Court included the particular moment in history marked by “significant unrest and turmoil” at the time, and the fact that the New Brighton store was “only a few miles from the site of George Floyd’s murder.” Accordingly, the Court concluded that in the context of the case Home Depot “demonstrated that the narrow special circumstances defense should apply,” and that the Board did not properly resolve the issue.

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.