Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 14 - April 18, 2025
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
No Published Board Decisions Issued.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
No Unpublished R Cases Issued.
C Cases
No Unpublished C Cases Issued.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Starbucks Corporation, Board No. 19-CA-296765 (unpublished order dated Feb. 14, 2024) (D.C. Cir. Apr. 17, 2025)
In an unpublished judgment, the D.C. Circuit enforced the Board’s order which, in the absence of timely filed exceptions, adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s decision finding that Starbucks committed unfair labor practices at a store in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The adopted findings included that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging two employees for their union activities, and violated Section 8(a)(1) by discriminatorily enforcing its dress code, telling employees that their union t-shirts violated the dress code, removing union postings from the bulletin board, and telling employees that they may not post union literature. Before the Board, Starbucks filed a motion to accept its late filings, as well as a Motion for Reconsideration, both of which argued that its counsel’s neglect in filing 23 minutes past the deadline due to complications in converting the documents to pdf format should be excused.
In denying the Motion for Reconsideration, the Board found that Starbucks’s excuse for filing late did not constitute excusable neglect because, among other reasons, the Board’s e-filing rules specifically allow “persons who do not have the ability to submit documents in pdf format” to submit them in “Microsoft Word format.” The Board therefore explained that Starbucks counsel “could have filed a Word document in order to meet the deadline.” The Board also noted that the Board and the courts “have long held that computer malfunctions on the user’s end do not constitute excusable neglect,” and that parties that wait to file until the last minute assume the risk of late filing. Subsequently, Starbucks filed a petition for review arguing that the Board abused its discretion by rejecting the late filings.
On review, the Court noted that Section 6 of the Act authorizes the Board “to make . . . such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of [the Act],” and that therefore the Board enjoys “’broad discretion in making and applying its own procedural regulations (such as filing deadlines),’” quoting NLRB v. Washington Star Co., 732 F.2d 974 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The Court undertook a comprehensive review of the procedural facts and Board rules applicable to the circumstances, and was unpersuaded by distinguishable cases presented by Starbucks. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Board “did not abuse its discretion when it followed its clear policies and precedents to reject Starbucks’s untimely filing.”
The Court’s judgment is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Intertape Polymer Corp. (07-CA-291784; JD–33–25) Maryville, MI. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on April 14, 2025. Charge filed by an individual.
Starbucks Corporation (12–CA–321037; JD-30-25) Seattle, WA. Administrative Law Judge Kimberly Sorg-Graves issued her decision on April 16, 2025. Charge filed by Workers United, Southern Regional Joint Board.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.