Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of April 7 - April 11, 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Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases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No Unpublished R Cases Issued.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
HSCGP, LLC d/b/a Trios Healthcare (19-CA-321939) Kennewick, WA, April 8, 2025. No exceptions having been filed to the February 27, 2025 decision of Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone’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 Office and Professional Employees’ International Union Local 8.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., Board No. 32-CA-309933 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 12) (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2025)
In an unpublished opinion that issued in this test-of-certification case, the Ninth Circuit enforced the Board’s bargaining order that issued against this provider of healthcare logistics and warehouse services from a facility in Tracy, California, where its employees voted 22 to 17 in a May 2022 election for representation by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 439. In doing so, the Court resolved two petitions for review, one filed by the Employer challenging the Board’s overruling of its election objections, and one filed by the Union contesting the date of the Employer’s refusal to bargain. The Court concluded that the Board acted within its discretion in overruling the election objections and rejected the Union’s argument that the Employer’s duty to bargain arose prior to certification.
In the underlying representation case, the Employer filed four objections to the election alleging that union representatives in the facility’s parking lot engaged in objectionable electioneering and intimidating behavior directed at eligible voters during the polling hours of the election. After a hearing, the Hearing Officer concluded that the Employer had not carried its burden of establishing objectionable conduct. On exceptions, the Regional Director upheld the Hearing Officer’s conclusions, overruled the election objections, and certified the Union. The Employer then filed a Request for Review, which was denied by the Board (Chairman McFerran, then-Member Kaplan, and Member Wilcox). After the Board issued its decision, the Employer filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Consistent with longstanding precedent, the Board granted the motion in part to correct the date of the Employer’s refusal to bargain from August 25 to December 6, the date of the Union’s certification. Subsequently, the Employer refused to bargain in order to seek court review.
On review, the Court acknowledged the principle that the Board “has broad discretion to determine the propriety of the union representation election process,” quoting Micronesian Telecomm. Corp. v. NLRB, 820 F.2d 1097 (9th Cir. 1987), and held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in upholding the Regional Director’s decision to overrule the Employer’s election objections. The Court explained that the Regional Director properly relied on Board precedent holding that union activity in areas that are not designated as no-electioneering locations, with nothing more, does not constitute objectionable electioneering sufficient to set aside an election, citing Milchem, Inc., 170 NLRB 362 (1968), and U-Haul of Nevada, Inc., 341 NLRB 195 (2004). Applying that standard, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Regional Director’s finding that the union representatives’ brief conversations with three voters and their presence in the parking lot did not constitute objectionable electioneering or voter intimidation. Finally, the Court held that the Board did not err in finding that the Employer’s refusal to bargain commenced on December 6, when the Union was certified by the Regional Director, noting that the Employer’s unfair labor practice in refusing to bargain with the Union began on the date that the Union was certified as the employees’ collective-bargaining representative.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 111 (27–CA–301386, et al.; JD(SF)-09-25) Denver, CO. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued his decision on April 7, 2025. Charges filed by United Professionals International.
Imlay Plumbing, Inc. (27-CA-314575; JD-31-25) Cedar City, UT. Administrative Law Judge Lisa Friedheim-Weis issued her decision on April 10, 2025. Charge filed by an individual.
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. d/b/a WPIX (02-CA-298558; JD-32-25) New York, NY. Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito issued her decision on April 11, 2025. Charge filed by Newsguild of New York, Local 31003, TNG/CWA, AFL-CIO.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.