Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of January 21 - 24, 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Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases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No Unpublished R Cases Issued.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
Nu Way Fab, LLC (14-CA-331222 and 14-RC-331217) Troy, IL, January 23, 2025. No exceptions having been filed to the December 9, 2024 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 International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Macy's, Inc., Board Case No. 20-CA-270047 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 42) (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2025).
In a published opinion, the Ninth Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against this nationwide retail business for an unfair labor practice committed in conjunction with its lockout of a unit of 60 to 70 building engineers represented by International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers, Local 39, who work at various locations in Northern California, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Reno, Nevada. In doing so, the Court denied the Union’s petition for review that requested remand for the Board to reconsider additional remedies, and denied Macy’s petition for review which sought reversal on the merits and challenged the Board’s ordering that it compensate the employees for any direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms as a result of the lockout.
In 2020, during negotiations for a successor agreement, Macy’s submitted a final offer which the Union presented to its membership for a ratification vote. The membership rejected the offer and that same day began a strike. Three months later, the strikers made an unconditional return-to-work offer. Rather than reinstate them, Macy’s locked them out without providing notice to the Union on how to avoid the lockout, and demanded an agreement in exchange for reinstating the strikers, but its demand was not tied to any open proposal. The Board (Chairman McFerran and then-Member Kaplan and Member Wilcox) found that Macy’s violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by locking out its employees without providing them with a timely, clear, and complete offer that set forth the conditions necessary to avoid the lockout. Among other remedies, the Board ordered the strikers reinstated and made whole for any loss of earnings or benefits, including direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms suffered as a result of the lockout, but denied additional remedies that the Union had requested.
Within 10 days of the issuance of the Board’s decision, Macy’s petitioned for review in the Fifth Circuit and the Union petitioned in the Ninth Circuit. The two petitions were then subject to venue selection by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which consolidated the petitions in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, in the Ninth Circuit, Macy’s filed a motion to transfer its petition back to the Fifth Circuit, and for dismissal of the Union’s petition based on a claim that the Union lacked standing because it was not a “person aggrieved” under Section 10(f) of the Act. The Court ordered that the motion be decided by the merits panel. On review, the Court rejected Macy’s claim of lack of aggrievement, noting that the Board had denied, in part, the relief the Union sought when it denied its request for additional remedies. The Court then concluded it properly had jurisdiction over the case, and denied the motion.
On the merits, the Court (Judges Wallach, Nguyen, and Bumatay) held that the Board’s unfair-labor-practice finding was consistent with law and supported by substantial evidence. The Court recognized that for a lockout to be deemed lawful, “the union must be informed on a timely basis of the employer’s demands so that the union can evaluate whether to accept them and prevent the lockout,” and that “the employees must not only be informed that they are locked out, but they must be clearly and fully informed of the conditions they must meet to be reinstated.” On the record evidence, the Court agreed with the Board’s conclusion that the employees were not clearly and fully informed of such conditions, and rejected Macy’s defensive contentions. On the Union’s petition, the Court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the Union’s request for additional remedies.
Lastly, in a thorough and comprehensive discussion, the Court (Judge Bumatay, dissenting) rejected Macy’s challenge to the Board’s ordering that the strikers be made whole for any direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms suffered as a result of the lockout, as provided for in Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022), enforcement denied on other grounds, 102 F.4th 727 (5th Cir. 2024). The Court agreed with the Board that “the make-whole relief provided for in Thryv furthers the policy of the NLRA because it is directly targeted at the Company’s unlawful lockout and aimed at restoring the economic strength that is necessary to ensure a return to the status quo ante at the bargaining table.” The Court rejected Macy’s argument that Thryv improperly authorized full compensatory damages akin to those awarded to private parties, holding instead that “the Board’s invocation of Thryv’s make-whole relief here vindicates a public right,” citing Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. NLRB, 319 U.S. 533 (1943). Further, the Court explained that “[t]o the extent that the Board’s make-whole relief somewhat resembles compensation for private injury, that compensation is merely incidental to the effectuation of the policies of the Act, because the remedy is primarily designed to aid in achieving the elimination of industrial conflict, thereby vindicating public, not private rights.”
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Amazom.com Services, LLC (28-CA-281240; JD(SF)-03-25) Las Vegas, NV. Administrative Law Judge Eleanor Laws issued her decision on January 22, 2025. Charge filed by an individual.
Parking Systems Plus, Inc. (29-CA-331253; JD-04-25) Valley Stream, NY. Administrative Law Judge Benjamin W. Green issued his decision on January 24, 2025. Charge filed by Local 1102, Retail Wholesale & Department Store Union, United Food and Commercial Workers.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.