Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of October 26 - 30, 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

Hiller LLC  (10-CA-393487; 375 NLRB No. 64)  Bowling Green, KY, October 28, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment in this test-of-certification case on the ground that the Respondent failed to raise any issues that were not, or could not have been, litigated in the underlying representation proceeding in which the Union was certified as the bargaining representative. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union.

Charge filed by UA Local 502 Plumbers Pipe Fitters and Services Technicians.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

                                                                                                  ***

Tesla, Inc. (03-CA-312352; 375 NLRB No. 63)  Buffalo, NY, October 28, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Employer’s Acceptable Use Policy for Workplace Technology was not unlawful under Section 8(a)(1).  In a footnote, Member Prouty noted that he would be open to reconsidering Caesars Entertainment d/b/a Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino, 368 NLRB No. 143 (2019) in a future appropriate case.  Chairman Murphy and Member Macy also observed that they would be open to reconsidering Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), in a future appropriate case while finding that it was not at issue here.

Charge filed by Rochester Regional Joint Board, Workers United.  Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his decision on October 4, 2024.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Macy participated.  

***

OQ Chemicals Corporation  (16-RC-354942; 375 NLRB No. 62)  Bay City, TX, October 30, 2026. 

On review, a Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Prouty; Member, Mayer, dissenting) affirmed the Regional Director’s finding that the petitioned-for work group leads are not statutory supervisors, concluding that the Employer had not met its evidentiary burden to prove that the work group leads responsibly direct employees using independent judgment. Member Mayer, dissenting, would have found that the work group leads are statutory supervisors.

Petitioner—International Union of Operating Engineers (IOUE), Local 564. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Cruise Network Plus, Inc., d/b/a Capital Area Travel Leaders  (07-CA-354201;  375 NLRB No. 66)  Grand Ledge, MI, October 30, 2026. 

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary Judgment as the Respondent raised no genuine issue of material fact warranting a hearing and that the General Counsel is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Accordingly, the Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging an employee because she engaged in protected concerted activity by discussing wages and working conditions and to discourage other employees from engaging in these or other concerted activities and by including in her termination notice the unlawfully broad prohibition not to contact customers.

Charge filed by an individual.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Pepperjacks of Annapolis Junction LLC d/b/a Notch 8 Brewery  (05-CA-328932; 375 NLRB No. 65)  Annapolis Junction, MD, October 30, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging an employee for discussing breaks and overtime with her coworkers and reporting possible violations to the Maryland Department of Labor.  The Board emphasized that statements by the Respondent’s owner constituted strong direct evidence of animus towards the employee’s protected discussions and reporting.  The Board also rejected the Respondent argument that it discharged the employee for failure to meet certification requirements as untimely raised and further found that the employee did not abandon her job. 

Charge filed by an individual.  Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on February 19, 2025.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

American Civil Liberties Union, Inc.  (05-CA-300367 and 05-CA-302762; 375 NLRB No. 67)  Washington, DC, October 30, 2026.

A Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer; Member Prouty, dissenting) reversed the Administrative Law Judge to find that the Respondent did not unlawfully retaliate against its employee in violation of Section 8(a)(1), by firing her and, earlier, by denying her job transfer request because she engaged in protected concerted activity.  The majority acknowledged that the employee had a long track record of engaging in protected concerted activity over a number of years but found that the Respondent ultimately fired her due to four discrete incidents that occurred over the last few months that she worked for the Respondent. 

Dissenting, Member Prouty principally contended that the employee’s years-long pattern of protected concerted activity could not be disentangled into discrete events and that the Respondent ultimately fired her because of that overall pattern of activity, in which he would include the incidents that occurred over the last few months that the employee worked for the Respondent.  As for the Respondent’s earlier denial of the employee’s transfer request, Member Prouty was of the view that that too was unlawful because, contrary to the majority, he would have found the incident giving rise to the denial to constitute protected concerted activity and found that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that it would have denied the request in the absence of that protected concerted activity.

Charges filed by Nonprofit Professional Employees Union (NPEU), International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local 70 a/w International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, CLC.  Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on August 7, 2024.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

Total Renal Care, Inc. d/b/a DaVita Visalia Vineyard Dialysis  (20-RC-359891)  Visalia, CA, October 26, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Extraordinary Relief of a stay of the ballot count on the ground that the ballot count had already occurred. Petitioner—Service Employees International Union – United Healthcare Workers West. Members Prouty, Mayer, and Macy participated. 

Lineage, Inc.  (13-RM-352486)  Chicago, IL, October 29, 2026.  The Board (Chairman Murphy and Member Prouty; Member Mayer, dissenting) denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Exceptions to the Hearing Officers Report as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Dissenting, Member Mayer would have granted review, finding that the inventory control technician position, which was one of the classifications included in the petitioned-for unit, did not share a sufficient community of interest with the remaining petitioned-for employees so as to render the petitioned-for unit appropriate.  Union—International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 703.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

A V Decking, Inc. d/b/a A V Metal Decking  (20-RC-373769)  San Francisco, CA, October 30, 2026.  The Board denied  the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision on Objections and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers.  Members Prouty, Mayer, and Macy participated.

C Cases

Marin General Hospital d/b/a MarinHealth Medical Center  (20-CA-370300)  Greenbrae, CA, October 30, 2026.  The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment or for Partial Summary Judgment. The Board found that the Respondent failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Charge filed by an individual. Members Prouty, Mayer, and Macy participated.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

The Methodist Hospitals, Inc.  (13-CA-333764; JD-70-26)  Merrillville, IN.  Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on October 26, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual.

United Cleanup Oak Ridge, LLC  (10-CA-309298, et al.; JD-71-26)  Oak Ridge, TN.  Administrative Law Judge Christal J. Key issued her decision on October 29, 2026.  Charges filed by individuals.

K/BTF Broadway LLC  (29-CA-340889; JD–74–26)  Hicksville, NY.  Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on October 30, 2026.  Charge filed by Local 2 Building Service Employees & Factory Workers USWU IUJAT.

Laborforce, LLC, M&K Employee Services, and M&K Truck Centers, as joint employers and/or alter egos  (13-CA-328585, et al.; JD-72-26)  Alsip, IL.  Administrative Law Judge Lisa Friedheim-Weis issued her decision on October 30, 2026. Charges filed by Automobile Mechanics’ Local 701, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO.

YWCA of Olympia  (19-CA-352644; JD–73–26)  Olympia, WA.  Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued his decision on October 30, 2026.  Charge filed by an individual.

***

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