Weekly Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of June 1 - 5, 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

Stericycle, Inc.  (04-CA-277775; 374 NLRB No. 121)  Southampton, PA, June 1, 2026.

In a supplemental decision, the Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer) declined the General Counsel’s and Charging Party’s requests to reconsider Stericycle, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 89 (2021) (Stericycle I), and affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of this allegation.  In the underlying decision,(Stericycle I), the Board severed and retained for further consideration the complaint allegation that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to provide bargaining notes in response to the Union’s information request. 

Dissenting, Member Prouty would overrule Stericycle I to the extent it held that bargaining notes are generally privileged and would, instead, analyze requests for bargaining notes under the Board’s well-established and broadly applicable law governing the general statutory duty to produce requested relevant information. Applying that standard to this case, Member Prouty would find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to provide the bargaining notes.

Charge filed by Teamsters Union Local No. 628.  Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on September 30, 2022.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Infusion Management Group d/b/a The Signature Room at the 95th and The Signature Lounge at the 96th and Richard J. Roman, Party in Interest, and Estate of Nick N. Pyknis, Party in Interest  (13-CA-328071; 374 NLRB No. 125)  Chicago, IL, June 1, 2026.

The Board denied the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on Infusion Management Group’s failure to file an answer. The Board found that the answer filed by Richard J. Roman, a named party in interest, precluded granting default judgment.  The Board remanded the case to the Regional Director for further processing. 

Charge filed by UNITE HERE Local 1.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Floss N Gloss PA d/b/a Aqua Dental  (16-CA-305753; 374 NLRB No. 122)  Pearland, TX, June 1, 2026.

The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by disciplining and terminating an employee for engaging in protected concerted activity. A Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer) limited the judge’s finding that the anonymous email was protected concerted activity to the judge’s credibility determinations and found it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s finding that the employee also engaged in protected concerted activity by discussing bonuses.  Contrary to his colleagues, Member Prouty adopted and relied on all of the judge’s findings of protected concerted activity.  In affirming the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by disciplining and terminating the employee, Chairman Murphy relied on the judge’s animus finding only insofar as it was based on the Respondent’s shifting rationales.  In joining his colleagues in affirming the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by disciplining and terminating the employee, Member Prouty noted that the direct evidence of animus and unlawful motivation in this case meant that the violation here may be found without conducting an analysis under Wright Line. 

Charge filed by an individual.  Administrative Law Judge Amita Baman Tracy issued her decision on July 26, 2024.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Peak Vista Community Health Centers  (27-CA-360180; 374 NLRB No. 126)  Colorado Springs, CO, June 3, 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 Union of American Physicians and Dentists Affiliated American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Asante d/b/a Asante Rogue Regional Medical Center  (19-CA-337585 and 19-CA-354526; 374 NLRB No. 127)  Medford, OR, June 3, 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.

Charges filed by Oregon Nurses Association. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Ampersand Publishing, LLC d/b/a Santa Barbara News-Press and 715 Anacapa, LLC, 725 Kellogg, LLC, as a single employer/single-integrated employer, and Wendy McCaw, an individual  (31-CA-028589, et al.; 374 NLRB No. 129)  June 4, 2026.

The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondents’ failure to file an answer to the compliance specification.  The Board ordered Respondents Ampersand Publishing, LLC d/b/a Santa Barbara News-Press and 715 Anacapa, LLC, 725 Kellogg, LLC, as a single employer/single-integrated employer and Respondent McCaw, an individual, to make the discriminatees whole by paying them the amounts set forth in the compliance specification and attached exhibits, including backpay and reimbursement for interim expenses and adverse tax consequences.

Charges filed by Graphic Communications Conference, International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

JSK Parsippany, LLC d/b/a Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott and Fairfield Parsippany, LLC d/b/a Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott as its Successor   (22–CA–305280, et al.; 374 NLRB No. 124)  Parsippany, NJ, June 4, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s default judgment findings that Respondent JSK Parsippany violated Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (1).  The Board affirmed the judge’s conclusions that Respondent Fairfield was a successor to Respondent JSK and was liable for JSK’s unfair labor practices.  The Board also adopted the judge’s conclusions that Respondent Fairfield violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discriminatorily refusing to hire six of Respondent JSK’s employees to evade successorship and subsequently discriminatorily terminating them, and Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to recognize and bargain with the Union and unilaterally changing employees’ terms and conditions of employment.  Additionally, the Board ordered Respondent Fairfield to make the Union whole for dues it would have received but for its failure to provide the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain prior to changing terms and conditions of employment.  Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer agree to apply Valley Hospital Medical Center, Inc. d/b/a Valley Hospital Medical Center, 371 NLRB No. 160 (2022), as extant precedent for institutional reasons and express no opinion regarding whether that case was correctly decided.

Charges filed by Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, AFL-CIO. Administrative Law Judge Susannah Merritt issued her decision on November 19, 2024 and issued an errata on November 21, 2024.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

***

Starbucks Corporation  (19–CA–295708, et al.; 374 NLRB No.130) Portland, OR, June 5, 2026. 

The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent did not violate Section 8(a)(1) by threatening to withhold previously announced wage increases and benefit improvements from employees because they were in the process of unionizing; Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging an employee, disciplining and then discharging another employee, and disciplining an employee; Section 8(a)(1) by selectively and disparately enforcing its Register Operation Customer Transactions policy more strictly against employees who supported the Union; and Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by issuing an employee a written warning as part of its selective and disparate enforcement of that policy because she supported the Union.

A Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Prouty; Member Mayer, dissenting), adopted the judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by more strictly enforcing its Dress Code policy without providing the Union with prior notice and an opportunity to bargain over this change, and by issuing a documented coaching to an employee pursuant to its stricter enforcement of the Dress Code.  Member Mayer, dissenting, would dismiss these allegations, finding that the General Counsel did not establish that the Respondent changed how it enforced its Dress Code.

Charges filed by Workers United Labor Union International, a/w Service Employees International Union.  Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on January 4, 2024. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Starbucks Corporation  (19-CA-299573; 374 NLRB No. 128)  Seattle, WA, June 5, 2026.

The Board unanimously adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by its interrogations of an employee.  A Board majority (Chairman Murphy and Member Prouty) also adopted the judge’s conclusion that the Respondent unlawfully interrogated employees through its phone calls from a District Manager and text messages from an Assistant Store Manager; its phone calls at one store; and its phone calls and text messages at another store.

Charge filed by Workers United Labor Union International.  Administrative Law Judge Brian D. Gee issued his decision on January 31, 2024.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

****

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

True Concord Voices and Orchestra, Inc.  (28-RC-344449)  Tucson, AZ, June 4, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election.  The Regional Director asserted jurisdiction over the Employer based on the Board’s discretionary jurisdiction standard for symphony orchestras, wherein the Board’s will assert jurisdiction over symphony orchestras with over $1 million in annual revenue.  The Board denied review of the Regional Director’s finding that certain donations were used for operating expenses even though they were restricted by the donor to be used for specified expenses.  Petitioner—Tucson Federation of Musicians, AFM, Local 33.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Humane Animal Rescue d/b/a Humane Animal Rescue of Pittsburgh  (06-RC-322382)  Pittsburgh, PA, June 5, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Supplemental Decision and Order on Challenged Ballots as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

C Cases

Watercrest Acquisition I, LLC, d/b/a Krystal Bay Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and Royal Meridian Management Company, LLC, single employer and joint employer   (12-CA-328174)  North Miami Beach, FL, June 2, 2026.  The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion to Issue a Revised Order.  No exceptions having been filed to the March 11, 2025 decision of Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron’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 and supplemental Order.  Charge filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East. 

Wrightsville Firewater LLC d/b/a John Wright Restaurant  (05-CA-331875)  Wrightsville, PA, June 2, 2026.   No exceptions having been filed to the April 21, 2026 decision of Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan’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.  Charge filed by an individual.

Strive Well-Being, Inc.  (21-CA-318148, et al.)  Los Angeles, CA, June 3, 2026.  No exceptions having been filed to the April 22, 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 Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1756.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

No Appellate Court Decisions involving Board Decisions to report.

***

Administrative Law Judge Decisions

Southern Aluminum Finishing Company, Inc. (25–CA–325283 and 25–CA–325296; JD-35-26)  Indianapolis, IN.  Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey P. Gardner issued his decision on June 3, 2026.  Charges filed by Sheet Metal Workers, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, Local Union No. 20. 

Layla Transportation, Inc. a/k/a Layla Transportation and Trading, Inc. (22-CA-325151; JD-36-26)  Piscataway, NJ.  Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey P. Gardner issued his decision on June 5, 2026. Charge filed by Teamsters Local Union No. 469. 

***

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