Weekly Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of June 8 - 12, 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

Parking Systems Plus, Inc. (29‑CA‑331253; 374 NLRB No. 123)  Valley Stream, NY, June 9, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent Parking Systems Plus, Inc. (Parking Systems) was a successor employer to Classic Parking Systems, Inc. (Classic), and that it violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling Classic’s employees they would not be hired because they were represented by a union, Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by refusing to hire Classic’s employees because of their affiliation with the Union, and Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union and unilaterally imposing initial terms and conditions of employment that differed from those set by Classic.  The Board also adopted the judge’s finding that the Respondent’s conditional offer of employment to a former Classic employee was unlawful because it effectively required the employee to relinquish her right to union representation.  Dissenting in part, Member Mayer would find the offer to be valid and would not grant instatement or backpay remedies to the employee, reasoning that the judge’s dismissal of a related Section 8(a)(1) allegation precluded such relief.  Member Mayer also indicated a willingness to reconsider Pressroom Cleaners, 361 NLRB 643 (2014), in a future case.

Charge filed by Local 1102, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, United Food and Commercial Workers.  Administrative Law Judge Benjamin W. Green issued his decision on January 24, 2025.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

M.J. Melo Painting Ltd.  (29–CA–278541, et al.; 374 NLRB No. 131)  Brooklyn, NY, June 10, 2026. 

The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging five employees and constructively discharging four other employees in retaliation for supporting the Union.  The Board also rejected the Respondent’s claim that a non-Board settlement between itself and the Union rendered the challenges to the ballots of four employees moot and required the dismissal of the Union’s representation petition in Case 29–RC–279096 because the Board declined to consider the non-Board settlement agreement given that it was not a part of the record but instead was simply attached to the Respondent’s exceptions.  Because the Respondent did not contest the judge’s decision to overrule the four ballot challenges on any other grounds, the Board affirmed that decision and directed the Regional Director to open and count the challenged ballots and take appropriate action consistent with the Board’s unpublished Order granting the Union’s Request for Review of the Acting Regional Director’s Decision on Challenges and Objections and Direction of Second Election. 

Charges filed by Local Union 1430, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.  Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey P. Gardner issued his decision on June 14, 2023. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated. 

***

United States Postal Service  (05-CA-287508; 374 NLRB No. 132)  Merrifield, VA, June 11, 2026.

The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining a rule applicable to its employees against “collecting signatures on petitions, polls, or surveys (except as otherwise authorized by Postal Service regulations)” on Postal Service property and prohibiting its employees from posting materials related to their terms and conditions of employment on the Respondent’s community bulletin boards.

Charge filed by an individual.  Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued his decision on September 8, 2023.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

SWCA, Incorporated d/b/a SWCA Environmental Consultants, Salt Lake City, UT     (27-CA-345263; 374 NLRB No. 134)   Salt Lake City, UT, June 12, 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 International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 222.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Anheuser-Busch, LLC  (12-CA-094114; 374 NLRB No. 133)  Jacksonville, FL, June 12, 2026. 

In a supplemental decision, on remand from the Eleventh Circuit, the Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by filing a Motion to Compel arbitration under a Dispute Resolution Program (DRP), which specified that arbitration would be the exclusive method for resolving workplace disputes, in the Charging Party’s federal discrimination lawsuit against the Respondent.  The DRP expressly excluded employees like the Charging Party who were members of a collective-bargaining unit and covered by a collective-bargaining agreement.  The Board found that the Respondent’s attempt to apply the DRP to the Charging Party through its Motion to Compel constituted a unilateral change to his terms and conditions of employment without providing the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain.  Because the Respondent had an illegal objective that violated the Act by filing its Motion to Compel, the Board ordered the Respondent to withdraw the Motion to Compel in the Charging Party’s federal discrimination lawsuit.

Charge filed by an individual.  Administrative Law Judge William Nelson Cates issued his decision on September 10, 2013.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

***

Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases

R Cases

A+E Factual Productions, LLC  (02-RC-351933)  New York, NY, June 8, 2026.  The Board granted the Employer’s and Interested Party’s Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election solely with respect to the Regional Director’s determination that the Employer did not meet its burden of establishing that the disputed classifications are statutory supervisors.  The Board vacated the Regional Director’s decision with respect to those disputed classifications; stated that his decision on that matter would have no preclusive effect in this or any other case; and directed that, if the ballots cast by employees in disputed classifications are determinative and their status is not otherwise resolved, the Regional Director shall direct a hearing during which all parties will be permitted to fully litigate the issue of the disputed classifications’ alleged supervisory status.  Additionally, the Board granted the Employer’s and the Interested Party’s request for extraordinary relief in one limited respect: directing that the Regional Director segregate and impound ballots cast by employees in disputed classifications.  Member Mayer applied Section 102.64(a) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations as extant law and expressed no opinion on whether the policy that the Board set forth in that rule was correctly determined.  In denying review of the Regional Director’s finding that the Employer is a statutory employer of the unit employes under Section 2(2) of the Act, he relied solely on its exercise of direct control over employees’ hiring, wages, and term of employment.  Petitioner—Writers Guild of America, East.  Interested Party—Atrium Staffing, LLC.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Compass Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Grassroots Cannabis  (14-RC-326236)  Litchfield, IL, June 8, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Member Murphy, dissenting in part, would have granted review with respect to whether the Employer’s Lead Production Technicians are statutory supervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act due to their role in assigning work. Petitioner—Local 881, United Food and Commercial Workers. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

SSM Health Care of Wisconsin Inc., d/b/a SSM Health St. Mary’s Hospital – Madison   (18-RC-386174)  Madison, WI, June 9, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board accordingly denied the Employer’s request for extraordinary relief as moot. Petitioner—SEIU Wisconsin. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

CPC of Missouri Smithville, LLC d/b/a Local Cannabis Company  (14-RC-339889) Smithville, MO, June 10, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  The Board noted its agreement with the Regional Director that the disputed “Post Harvest” classifications did not qualify as “agricultural” under the Fair Labor Standards Act definition which the Board utilizes in determining the exclusion of agricultural laborers under Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act.  The Board found that the petitioned-for employees shared a sufficient community of interest to be included in the same unit, but did not rely on the Regional Director’s finding that the Manufacturing and Post-Harvest employees are functionally integrated.  The Board found no merit in the Employer’s allegation that the Regional Director or the Hearing Officer exhibited bias against or prejudiced it in their rulings. Petitioner—International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 41. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Advocate South Suburban Hospital  (13-RC-359590)  Hazel Crest, IL, June 10, 2026.  The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review as it raised no substantial issues warranting review.  In denying review, the Board noted that the Employer’s quorum-related argument was meritless under Satellite Healthcare (Santa Rosa), 374 NLRB No. 25 (2026).  Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer rejected the Employer’s argument related to captive-audience meetings for the reasons they stated in Satellite Healthcare, Inc., 374 NLRB No. 39 (2026).  Petitioner—International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 399.  Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Carver Sand & Gravel LLC, a subsidiary of Heidelberg Materials Northeast LLC   (03-RC-363572)  Ravena, NY, June 10, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election and Certification of Representative as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner—International Union of Operating Engineers Local 158, District 106. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

Carver Sand & Gravel, LLC, a subsidiary of Heidelberg Materials Northeast LLC   (03-RC-363553)  Johnstown, NY, June 12, 2026. The Board denied the Employer’s Requests for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Denying Request to Block, Order Denying Request for Reconsideration, and Decision on Objections and Certification of Representative as they raised no substantial issues warranting review. The Board accordingly denied the Employer’s request for extraordinary relief as moot. Petitioner— International Union of Operating Engineers Local 158, District 106. Chairman Murphy and Members Prouty and Mayer participated.

C Cases

Riverwood Center, LLC (12-RM-330540 and 12-CA-334715)   Jacksonville, FL, June 10, 2026.  No exceptions having been filed to the April 30, 2026 decision of Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas’s finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions and dismissed the complaint.  Charge filed by The Independent Association of Public and Private Employees.

A-V Services, Inc.  (22-CA-332620 and 22-RC-320562)  Fairfield, NJ, June 11, 2026.  No exceptions having been filed to the April 30, 2026 decision of Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito’s finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices, the Board adopted the judge’s findings and conclusions and dismissed the complaint.  Charge filed by International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 59, AFL-CIO.

***

Appellate Court Decisions

NP Red Rock LLC d/b/a Red Rock Casino Resort & Spa, Board Case No. 28-CA-244484 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 67) (D.C. Cir. June 10, 2026).

In an unpublished opinion, the D.C. Circuit enforced in full the Board’s order that issued against this Las Vegas, Nevada casino for approximately 50 unfair labor practices and upheld the Board’s ordering of a remedial bargaining order.  Those unlawful actions began when the Casino’s employees initiated their organizing efforts, and continued after Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas gained majority support and filed an election petition, as well as after the December 2019 election, which the Union lost on a vote of 627 to 534.  The Union filed election objections, which were later consolidated with the unfair-labor-practice complaint.  While the case was pending before the Administrative Law Judge, the Regional Director successfully petitioned for interim injunctive relief, which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit.  Overstreet v. NP Red Rock, LLC, 2021 WL 3064120 (D. Nev. July 2021), affirmed, 2021 WL 5542167 (9th Cir. 2021). 

Consistent with the ALJ’s recommended decision, the Board found merit to the Union’s election objections and the bulk of the unfair-labor-practice allegations.  The Board explained that “the whole record reflects that the [Casino]’s extensive coercive and unlawful misconduct stemmed from a carefully crafted corporate strategy intentionally designed at every step to interfere with employees’ free choice whether or not to select the Union as their collective-bargaining representative,” and given the evidence of prior majority support, found that the Casino’s “pervasive and egregious misconduct” warranted a remedial affirmative bargaining order under NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969). Additionally, under the standard of Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023), the Board found that a bargaining order was alternatively warranted to remedy the Casino’s refusal to bargain with the Union at a time when the Union had in fact been designated representative by a majority of employees in an appropriate unit, and then committed unfair labor practices requiring the election to be set aside.  Among other remedies, the Board also issued a notice-reading requirement.

On review, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings, and that, in total, the Casino’s arguments “either lack merit, were forfeited, or were not properly preserved.”  On the Casino’s challenges to the Gissel bargaining order, the Court held that the Board’s issuance of the remedy was warranted on the record as a whole which supported the Board’s determination that the Casino’s misconduct met the “pervasive and egregious” standard of Gissel, and that the Board’s issuance of the remedy was consistent with D.C. Circuit precedent.  The Court also upheld the notice-reading requirement, noting that “a public reading may be appropriate where, as here, upper management has been directly involved in multiple violations of the Act,” quoting Veritas Health Servs., Inc. v. NLRB, 895 F.3d 69 (D.C. Cir. 2018).  Regarding the Board’s ordering of a bargaining order on the alternative grounds of Cemex, the Court stated:  “Because we affirm the Board’s imposition of the bargaining order under Gissel, we need not consider whether the bargaining order is separately warranted under Cemex.”  The Court also denied the Union’s petition for review, which had argued that certain access remedies should have been included in the Board’s order. 

The Court rejected three constitutional arguments raised by the Casino.  First, its argument that “the Board’s wielding of both prosecutorial and adjudicative powers violated its due process rights” was foreclosed by circuit precedent, citing Flamingo Hilton-Laughlin v. NLRB, 148 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Second, the Court held that the argument that the Board is structurally unconstitutional because ALJs and Board members are insulated from removal was jurisdictionally barred from review because it had not been presented to the Board as required under Section 10(e) of the Act.  Third, the Court noted that, although the Casino listed a claim in the issue statement in its opening brief that the Board’s adjudication of private rights without a jury trial violated the Seventh Amendment, the Casino failed to provide any legal argument on the issue, citing Laurel Bay Health & Rehab. Ctr. v. NLRB, 666 F.3d 1365 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

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.