Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of September 7 - 11. 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

Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado d/b/a Centura Health—St. Mary Corwin Medical Center  (27–CA–273705, et al.; 375 NLRB No. 37)  Pueblo, CO, September 9, 2026.

The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by prohibiting employees from talking about the Union during working time, threatening employees with discipline and reassignment to a different work location if they talked about the Union at work, soliciting employees to sign a petition to decertify the Union as their collective-bargaining representative, promising employees higher pay if they signed a petition to decertify the Union and rejected the Union as their bargaining representative, and providing more than ministerial assistance to employees in propelling a petition to decertify the Union.  A majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer) reversed the judge to find that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by withdrawing recognition from the Union; by failing and refusing, since the date of withdrawal, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit; and by unilaterally granting wage increases to employees in the unit, ceasing to deduct dues from unit employees and remitting those dues to the Union, and removing materials from the union bulletin boards and ending union access to those bulletin boards.  The majority found that, at the time the Respondent withdrew recognition, it possessed untainted evidence that the Union had lost the support of a majority of employees in the bargaining unit.  

Dissenting in part, Member Prouty would have found the petition relied upon by the Respondent to be tainted by its unlawful conduct, and would have affirmed the judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by withdrawing recognition from the Union absent a valid showing of actual loss of majority status; by failing and refusing, since the date of withdrawal, to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit; and by unilaterally granting wage increases to employees in the unit, ceasing to deduct dues from unit employees and remitting those dues to the Union, and removing materials from the union bulletin boards and ending Union access to those boards.  

Charges filed by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO.  Administrative Law Judge Brian D. Gee issued his decision on April 20, 2023.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

***

Leo Marine Services, Inc., Centerline Logistics Corporation, Olympic Tug & Barge, Inc., Harley Marine Financing, LLC, and Westoil Marine Services  (19-CA-273208, et al.; 375 NLRB No. 35)  San Pedro, CA, September 10, 2026.

The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that Respondents Leo Marine Services, Inc., Centerline Logistics Corporation, Olympic Tug & Barge, Inc., Harley Marine Financing, LLC, and Westoil Marine Services are a single employer for purposes of the Act. The Board also affirmed the judge’s findings that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(2) and (1) by prematurely recognizing the Seafarers International Union as the collective-bargaining representative of LMS employees and violated Section 8(a)(3), (2), and (1) by entering into a collective-bargaining agreement with the SIU containing a union-security clause and by imposing SIU membership and dues deductions on employees.

Additionally, although the judge applied the contract coverage standard to find that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally transferring bargaining-unit work away from bargaining-unit employees, the Board affirmed this violation under the extant clear and unmistakable waiver standard. A majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer) reversed the judge’s finding that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(1) when they announced the unlawful transfer of bargaining-unit work to employees. Member Prouty would have affirmed the 8(a)(1) violation.

Charges filed by Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific and International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, AFL-CIO. Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his decision on April 3, 2024.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 139 (The Boldt Co.)  (18-CD-352973; 374 NLRB No. 38)  Appleton, WI, September 11, 2026.

The Board found that this case was not appropriate for resolution under Section 10(k) and quashed the notice of hearing.  The Boldt Company had filed a charge alleging that Engineers Local 139 violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) by threatening to strike and/or picket the jobsite with the object to force The Boldt Company to assign certain work to Engineers-represented employees rather than to employees represented by Teamsters Local 662.  The Board found that both unions were trying to preserve the work that each had historically performed under their respective collective-bargaining agreements, and that the company played a role in creating the dispute.   As such, the Board did not find a traditional jurisdictional dispute in which an innocent employer was willing to assign the work to either group if the other would just let him alone.  

Charge filed by The Boldt Company.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

KGW-TV  (19-RC-376874)  Porland, OR, September 8, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Dismissing Objections and Directing Hearing on Remaining Objections as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—IBEW Local 48. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Behrens and Associates, Inc.  (31-UC-380384)  Gardena, CA, September 9, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer's Request for Review of the Regional Director's Decision and Order Clarifying Unit as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  Petitioner—International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12, AFL-CIO.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Premier Beverage Company, LLC d/b/a Breakthru Beverage Florida  (12-RD-374423)  Jacksonville, FL, September 9, 2026.  The Board denied the Union’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Order Overruling Objection, Resolving One Challenged Ballot, Directing a Hearing on the Remaining Challenged Ballots and Notice of Hearing, as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  In so doing, the Board agreed with the result that the Regional Director reached (i.e., overruling the objection) but did not agree with his rationale (i.e., that the Union’s objection and offer of proof provided insufficient evidence).  Instead, the Board found that the objection was not cognizable in the representation proceeding, because the gravamen of the objection is a Section 8(a)(3) and/or (5) violation.  The Board also dismissed the request for extraordinary relief (a stay of the hearing on challenged ballots) as moot.  

Petitioner—an Individual. Union—International Brotherhood of Teamsters.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

C Cases

No Unpublished C Cases Issued.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

American Backflow & Fire Prevention, Inc., Board Case No. 13-CA-288185 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 71) (7th Cir. September 8, 2026).

In a published opinion, the Seventh Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against this business that installs and repairs backflow, plumbing, and fire line safety inspection equipment in Wauconda, Illinois, where its technicians and plumbers voted to unionize with Plumbers Local 130, United Association of Journeyman and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry in 2021.  Subsequently, the Union filed charges alleging, among other conduct, that the Employer refused to meet at reasonable times for bargaining, threatened and solicited employees to decertify the Union, and assisted with decertification efforts.  The parties reached a settlement of those allegations, but thereafter the Employer withdrew recognition.  After the Employer refused to cure its non-compliance with the settlement agreement, a second complaint issued, and the General Counsel filed a motion for a default judgment, which was granted by the Board (Members Prouty and Wilcox, Member Kaplan, dissenting).  On review, the Court held that the Board’s decision to grant the Motion for Default Judgment was supported by substantial evidence and had a reasonable basis in law.

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.