Skip to main content

The NLRB reopened from shutdown status on November 13, 2025. Due dates to file or serve most documents were tolled during the period of the shutdown, although due dates cannot be tolled for filing and service of unfair labor practice charges, applications for awards of fees and other expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and certain representation petitions. For documents where tolling applies, the terms are that for each day on which the Agency’s offices were closed for all or any portion of the day, one day is added to the time for filing or service of the document. If the new due date falls on a weekend or holiday, the new due date will be moved to the next business day. For example, if the original due date was October 7, 2025 and the shutdown lasted 43 days, the revised due date is November 19, 2025. See chart for revised due dates.

Breadcrumb

  1. Home

News & Publications

Newspapers

Board affirms ALJ in Staffing Network Holdings

Office of Public Affairs

202-273-1991

publicinfo@nlrb.gov

www.nlrb.gov

In Staffing Network Holdings, (13-CA-105031; 362 NLRB No. 12), The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s findings that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by twice threatening employees with termination because of their protected concerted activity and by discharging an employee for conduct that occurred during the course of her protected concerted activity. The majority noted, contrary to the judge, that the fourth factor of the Atlantic Steel Co., 245 NLRB 814 (1979), test—whether the employee’s outburst was provoked by the employer’s unfair labor practice—weighed in favor of protection because the employee’s outburst was provoked by the Respondent’s unlawful threats of termination. Member Johnson agreed with his colleagues’ adoption of the judge’s findings of violations. He added that he would have solely relied on a particular statement made by the Respondent in finding the unlawful threat of termination. Member Johnson also clarified which conduct he regarded as constituting the employee outburst in the judge’s Atlantic Steel analysis, noted that he would find that the nature of the employee’s outburst weighed weakly toward a loss of protection, and stated that he would not disturb the judge’s finding that the provocation factor of the Atlantic Steel test did not weigh in favor of protection. Charge filed by an individual. Administrative Law Judge Melissa M. Olivero issued her decision on July 17, 2014. Chairman Pearce and Members Hirozawa and Johnson participated.