Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of September 28 - October 2, 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

Bluefield Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a Bluefield Regional Medical Center  (10-CA-153544; 375 NLRB No. 59)  Bluefield, WV, September 30, 2026.

In this compliance case, the Board unanimously granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to allegations that were admitted to by the Respondent or that seek to relitigate the remedy in the court-enforced Board Order in this case.  In addition, the Board unanimously denied the General Counsel’s motion as to issues for which there is a genuine factual issue in dispute, including whether the discriminatees would have received wage increases throughout the backpay period, and for which the Respondent denied allegations that are beyond its knowledge, including the discriminatees’ interim earnings and interim employer retirement benefits.  A Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer) denied the General Counsel’s motion as to allegations that are dependent on the calculation of backpay amounts and/or interim earnings or otherwise relate to material issues involving the Respondent’s 401(k) benefits or other allegations that the Respondent sufficiently denied.  Member Prouty stated that he would have granted summary judgment as to those allegations that pertain to information about the discriminatees’ participation in the Respondent’s 401(k) plan that was indisputably within the Respondent’s knowledge and for which the Respondent only provided general denials, that are correct as a matter of law, and that set forth the premises and methodology for calculating parts of the backpay remedy.

Charge filed by National Nurses Organizing Committee/National Nurses United (NNOC/NNU).  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Everon, LLC   (01-RD-379428; 357 NLRB No. 52)  Wallingford, CT,  September 30, 2026. 

The Board denied both the Employer and Petitioner's Requests for Review of the Regional Director's letter blocking the petition, finding they raised no substantial issues warranting review. Concurring, Member Mayer would require Regional Directors to identify the specific allegations on which they are relying in their blocking letters, including whether the charges are Type I or Type II per the NLRB Casehandling Manual. 

Petitioner—an individual. Union—Road Sprinkler Fitters UA Local 669. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

                                                                                                   ***

Starbucks Corporation  (18-CA-298181; 375 NLRB No. 49) West Allis, WI, September 30, 2026.

The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by its manager threatening a loss of benefits to an employee, and by soliciting employee grievances and threatening a loss of benefits during two mandatory employee meetings.  The Board unanimously held that the judge correctly dismissed the allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by a supervisor’s statement that she would not be able to support employees the same way if there was a Union, and by holding two mandatory employee meetings.  The Board also unanimously held that the judge did not abuse his discretion by allowing the General Counsel to twice amend the complaint, did not err by declining to address an allegation that was not included in the complaint, and did not err by dismissing the allegations that the Respondent threatened employees would lose their direct relationship with management if they voted to join the union.

A majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer; Member Prouty, dissenting) dismissed the allegations that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by its manager stating that she would leave the store if employees unionized, and by its manager telling an employee she was being “aggressive.”  A majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer; Member Prouty, dissenting) also found it unnecessary to pass on whether the Respondent violated the Act by its manager telling an employee unions cause negative things to happen and she would leave the store if employees voted to join the Union, and by telling employees during two mandatory meetings that unionizing would cause a negative environment.

Dissenting in part, Member Prouty would have found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by its manager stating that she would leave the store if employees unionized, by its manager telling an employee she was being “aggressive” during a one-on-one conversation, by its manager stating that unions cause negative things to happen and she would leave the store if employees voted to join the Union, and by telling employees during two mandatory meetings that unionizing would cause a negative environment.  Member Prouty would also order additional remedies.

Charges filed by Chicago & Midwest Regional Joint Board, Workers United/SEIU. Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl issued his decision on October 17, 2023. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

***

Starbucks Corporation  (19-CA-293492; 375 NLRB No. 48)  Seattle, WA, September 30, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by constructively discharging an employee for supporting the Union.  The Board (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer; Member Prouty, dissenting) also reversed the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent unlawfully threatened an employee.

Charge filed by Workers United. Administrative Law Judge Lisa D. Ross issued his decision on September 21, 2023. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

***

Lone Spur Cafe Queen Creek LLC  (28–CA–284166 and 28–CA–299606.; 375 NLRB No. 51) Queen Creek, AZ, September 30, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment due to the Respondent’s noncompliance with the provisions of the parties’ informal settlement agreement.  The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by, among other things, promulgating an overly broad directive; threatening employees with discharge for engaging in protected, concerted activities; and discharging employees for engaging in protected, concerted activities.  The Board ordered the Respondent to comply with the unmet terms of the settlement agreement. 

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

***

S.R. Key Plumbing and Mechanical, LLC  (10-CA-291436; 375 NLRB No. 57)  Hiram, GA, September 30, 2026.

The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s findings that the Respondent discriminatorily refused to hire two pipefitters when it had vacancies because of their union affiliation in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and that the Respondent coercively interrogated a welder in violation of Section 8(a)(1).  In addition, a Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer) affirmed the judge’s dismissal of the allegations that the Respondent discharged or constructively discharged the welder because he was not presented with a “clear and unequivocal” choice between his union activity and continued employment and that the Respondent did not promulgate a rule requiring its employees to sever ties to a union.  Dissenting in part, Member Prouty would have found that the Respondent constructively discharged the welder after repeatedly telling him that he could not work for the Respondent and retain his union membership in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) and that the Respondent had a rule that it would not allow its employees to be associated with the union in violation of Section 8(a)(1).  He also stated that he would have ordered enhanced remedies sought by the General Counsel and would have revisited the Board decisions in Oil Capitol Sheet Metal, Inc., 349 NLRB 1348 (2007), and Toering Electric, 351 NLRB 225 (2007), involving the Board’s treatment of union salts.

Charge filed by Georgia Carolina Pipe Trades Association a/w United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on November 17, 2023.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Beatrice Loving Heart and Healthcare Agency (05–CA–301128; 375 NLRB No. 56)  Lanham, MD, September 30, 2026.

The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by implicitly threatening an employee with discharge for engaging in protected concerted activity, discharging the employee for that activity, and issuing and maintaining exit letters containing overbroad defamation language that would reasonably tend to interfere with employees’ Section 7 rights.  The Board also unanimously reversed the judge to find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by prohibiting an employee from sharing her Employment Security Agreement.  A majority severed a complaint allegation that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining an overbroad confidentiality rule in its Employee Handbook and retained it for further consideration.  Dissenting in part, Member Prouty would not have severed the allegation regarding the Respondent’s confidentiality rule, because, in his view, extant Board precedent provides ample guidance for deciding the issue.

Charge filed by an individual.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on March 21, 2024.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

American Tower Corporation  (13-CA-326591; 375 NLRB No. 50)  Schaumburg, IL, September 30, 2026. 

The Board (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer; Member Prouty, dissenting) adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent met its rebuttal burden under Wright Line, to prove that it would have discharged an employee even absent his protected concerted activity; and found it unnecessary to pass on whether the judge properly found that the General Counsel failed to meet her initial burden under Wright Line, by not showing that the Respondent harbored animus against employee’s protected concerted activity.  Member Prouty, dissenting, would have found that the judge erred both by finding the Respondent met its rebuttal burden, and by finding that the General Counsel failed to meet her initial burden under Wright Line.

Charge filed by Communication Workers of America.  Administrative Law Judge Keltner W. Locke issued his decision on January 28, 2026.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. a subsidiary of The Kroger Company  (19–CA–272795 and 19–CA–272796; 375 NLRB No. 53)  Seattle, Burien, and Bellingham, WA, September 30, 2026. 

The Board unanimously found, in agreement with the Administrative Law Judge, that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally changing their unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment without providing the Union notice and opportunity to bargain by instructing and/or warning employees that they may not wear “Black Lives Matter” and “BLM” insignia while working, by directing them to remove such insignia from their clothing and persons, by prohibiting employees from wearing “Black Lives Matter/UFCW Local 21” insignia, and by sending and constructively sending them home for refusing to remove BLM and/or “Black Lives Matter/UFCW Local 21” insignia from their uniforms.  The Board also unanimously found, in agreement with the judge, that Respondent Quality Food Centers violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by implementing a new dress code policy regarding COVID-19 masks without providing the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain. 

In light of their findings that the Respondents’ unlawful conduct violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1), they found it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s additional findings that the Respondents independently violated Section 8(a)(1) by the same conduct, as the additional findings would not materially affect the remedy. For this reason, the Board also found it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s findings that the Respondents’ employees engaged in protected concerted activity when they donned BLM buttons and related insignia while working. 

Charges filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Local No. 21, a/w United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.  Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone issued her decision on May 3, 2023.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Tim Force Tin Shop, Inc.  (27-CA-322370; 375 NLRB No. 44)  Casper, WY, September 30, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to execute and adhere to a previously agreed upon collective-bargaining agreement.

Charge filed by SMART NW Regional Council, Local 103.   Administrative Law Judge John T. Giannopoulos issued his decision on March 28, 2025.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Country Cupboard of Barnwell, LLC   (10-CA-370518; 375 NLRB No. 45)  Barnwell, SC, September 30, 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 threatening employees with discharge and discharging an employee because they engaged in protected concerted activity. 

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

***

The Queen’s Medical Center  (20-CA-366357 and 20-CA-366358; 375 NLRB No. 46) Honolulu, HI, September 30, 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 and furnish information to the Union.

Charges filed by Hawai‘i Nurses’ Association, OPEIU Local 50.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Greco Steel Products, Inc.(06–RC–350334 and 06–RM–350348; 375 NLRB No. 47) Springdale, PA, September 30, 2026. 

The Board (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer; Member Prouty, dissenting) granted the Employer’s Request for Review and reversed the Regional Director, finding the Employer sufficiently demonstrated that the Ironworkers Local 3 Business Manager told an employee that, if Petitioner International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers won the election, the fees that the employee would otherwise need to pay in order to reinstate his union membership would be waived.  The Board further found that this promise of benefit to the employee would be objectionable if the business manager was an agent of the Petitioner.  However, the Board found that the Regional Director “implicitly found it unnecessary to reach” the agency issue given her erroneous finding that the promise of benefit to the employee was not objectionable.  Accordingly, the Board remanded the case “for the Regional Director to make the agency determination in the first instance.”  Member Prouty would have denied review because, in his view, there was “no need to remand this case to the Regional Director for a finding regarding [the business manager’s] agency status, because the record evidence cannot support such a finding.”

Petitioner—International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers.   Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Lancaster Coffee Co. & Café LLC  (03-CA-306479; 375 NLRB No. 58)  Lancaster, NY, September 30, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent, a small family-owned café, violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging, removing from the work schedule, and locking out a group of employees in retaliation for their protected concerted activity of planning a meeting to discuss workplace concerns with the owner.  However, the Board reversed the judge’s dismissal of these allegations as to one employee, based on his privately-recorded conversations with coworkers while they waited for the owner to arrive.  The Board found that the Respondent had not met its evidentiary burden to show unequivocal evidence of the employee’s intent to permanently sever the employment relationship, in light of the Respondent’s agent’s demand for the employees’ keys.  The Board also adopted the judge’s findings, in the absence of exceptions, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by physically restraining and assaulting an employee, creating an impression of surveillance, threatening the group of employees with arrest for trespassing if they returned to the café, and refusing to allow them onto its property.

Charge filed by an individual.  Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on February 26, 2024.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 7  ( 27-CA-298239, et al.; 375 NLRB No. 55) Denver, CO, September 30, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent (1) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by (A) unilaterally confiscating employees’ equipment and employer-provided credit cards and requiring them to check-out and check-in certain equipment each day, (B) unilaterally discontinuing elements of the expired grievance procedure, (C) conditioning its consent to successor contracts on FAIR’s acceptance of a nonmandatory proposal, and (D) bargaining in bad faith; (2) violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminatorily confiscating employees’ equipment; (3) violated Section 8(a)(1) by (A) inviting employees to quit in response to concerted complaints about working conditions, (B) unlawfully disparaging FAIR, and (C) telling employees that the grievance procedure was no longer in effect; and (4) did not violate Section 8(a)(1) and (3) by interrogating and discharging an employee.  A Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Prouty) found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling employees that it was confiscating their equipment because they might strike, while Member Mayer found it unnecessary to pass. Reversing the judge, the Board additionally found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally reducing the monthly in-town car allowance.

Charges filed by Federation of Agents and International Representatives and two individuals.  Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on February 8, 2024.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

BWXT Nuclear Operations Group, Inc. (BWXT NOG) (10-RD-387727)  Lynchburg, VA, September 25, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s determination to hold the petition in abeyance, finding it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  For institutional reasons, Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer applied extant law in denying the Employer’s Request for Review and expressed no opinion on whether the extant blocking charge policy was correctly determined. Concurring, Member Mayer noted that the Board’s decision in Starbucks Corp., 374 NLRB No. 141 (2026) explained that the term “special circumstances” in Section 103.20 refers to the long-established exceptions to the blocking charge policy set forth in the Board’s Casehandling Manual (CHM) and that the Board’s 2024 Representation-Case Procedures rulemaking referred to those set forth in the August 2007 CHM, which is no longer publicly available.  Member Mayer further explained that the current version of the same section of the CHM does not list any factors and, therefore, in concurring, he listed the factors listed in the August 2007 CHM.  Petitioner—an individual.  Union—International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Stanford University  (32-RC-386778)  Stanford, CA, September 29, 2026. The Board granted the Employer’s Motion to Stay Election and Submission of Voter List and Notice of Intent to File Request for Review in part. The Board modified the Regional Director’s subpoena to exclude from production any non-public information regarding a student who has filed an objection to the subpoena under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act prior to the time the Employer’s response to the subpoena is due. The Board further indicated that it would consider those objections as part of the Employer’s forthcoming Request for Review. The Board denied the Employer’s motion in all other respects. Petitioner—Residential Assistants United Rising (RAUR). Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

ATI Specialty Alloys & Components, LLC  (10-RC-376870)  Huntsville, AL, September 29, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s finding that a challenged ballot should remain unopened and uncounted.  Petitioner—United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied & Industrial Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Movement Holdings, LLC d/b/a Movement Gym  (05-RC-382041)  Timonium, MD, September 29, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer's Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision on Objections and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  The Board agreed with the Regional Director that the Employer's offer of proof was deficient with respect to its objections alleging Petitioner conduct.  The Board also addressed the Employer's alternative argument, concluding that the conduct at issue did not meet the standard for setting an election aside due to third-party conduct.  Petitioner—Mid-Atlantic Regional Joint Board, Workers United a/w Service Employees International Union.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

ERMC Aviation LLC  (29-RC-360278)  Jamacia, NY, September 29, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision on Objections and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner— Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

Home Express Delivery Service, LLC d/b/a TEMCO Logistics  (10-RC-378767)  Lithonia, GA, September 29, 2026. The Board denied the Employer's Request for Review of the Regional Director's Order Directing Hearing and Notice of Hearing on Objections and Certification of Representative finding it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—Teamsters Local 528. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.  

A.S.H. Electrical Services, LLC  (16-RD-374302)  San Angelo, TX, September 30, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision and Order Dismissing Petition as it did not raise any substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—an individual.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

C Cases

Shell Pipeline Co. LP; and  Pennzoil-Quaker State Company d/b/a SOPUS Products  (16-CA-342028, et al.)  Galena Park, TX, September 28, 2026.  No exceptions having been filed to the August 17, 2026 decision of Administrative Law Judge Brian D. Gee’s finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions, and ordered the Respondent to take the action set forth in the judge’s recommended Order.  Charges filed by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO, CLC.

Asante Rogue Regional Medical Center  (19-CA-316937 and 19-CA-32114)  Medford, OR, September 30, 2026.  No exceptions having been filed to the August 17, 2026 decision of Administrative Law Judge Susannah Merritt’s finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions, and ordered the Respondent to take the action set forth in the judge’s recommended Order. Charges filed by Oregon Nurses Association.

Aleut Information Technology, LLC  (19-CA-350069, et al.)  Anderson, AK, September 30, 2026.  No exceptions having been filed to the August 19, 2026 decision of Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl’s finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions, and ordered the Respondent to take the action set forth in the judge’s recommended Order. Charges filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 959. 

Reliance Plumbing, Sewer and Drainage, Inc.  (13-CA-328849, et al.)  Northbrook, IL, September 29, 2026.  Having granted the Respondent’s Motion to Withdraw Exceptions to the July 21, 2025 decision of Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter’s finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions, and ordered the Respondent to take the action set forth in the judge’s recommended Order. Charges filed by Plumbers Local 130, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

The Book Rescuers Inc.  (12-CA-360500; JD–62–26)  Largo, FL.  Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on September 30, 2026. Charge filed by an individual.

Starbucks  Corporation  (05-CA-318025 and 05-CA-324434; JD-63-26)  Ashburn, VA.   Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on September 30, 2026. Charges filed by Mid-Atlantic Regional Joint Board Workers United a/w Service Employees International Union.

                                                                                                   ***

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