Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 10 - 14, 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Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases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
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (18-RC-349911) Saint Louis Park, MN, March 11, 2025. The Board denied the Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Order Approving Unilateral Stipulation on Challenged Ballots, Issuing a Revised Tally of Ballots, and Certification of Representative as it raised no substantial issues warranting review. Petitioner— Wells Fargo Workers United, CWA. Chairman Kaplan and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
Power Up Electrical Contractors, LLC (14-RC-318552, et al.) St. Louis, MO, March 11, 2025. The Board denied the Motions for Reconsideration filed by the Employers, the Mid-America Carpenters Regional Council, and the Associated Electrical Contractors of St. Louis. Petitioners—International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Nos. 1 and 124, AFL-CIO, a/w International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Chairman Kaplan and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
C Cases
Amazon.com Services, LLC (19-CA-323984) Seattle, WA, March 11, 2025. The Board denied the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the Respondent failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Charge filed by United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 3000. Chairman Kaplan and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 606, AFL-CIO (Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., d/b/a Walt Disney World Co.) (12-CB-315874) Orlando, FL, March 12, 2025. No exceptions having been filed to the February 6, 2025 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 an individual.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Exxon Mobil Research & Engineering, Board Case No. 22-CA-218903 (reported at 372 NLRB No. 138) (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2025).
In a published opinion, the Fifth Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against Exxon for unfair labor practices committed during negotiations for a successor agreement covering a unit of 165 research technicians working at a facility in Annandale, New Jersey, where the technicians are represented by the Independent Laboratory Employees Union. As a preliminary matter, the Court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in vacating its earlier decision (370 NLRB No. 23 (2020)), in which Member Emanual had participated and was later found to have been disqualified due to a financial conflict of interest. On the merits, the Court upheld the Board’s unfair labor practices as supported by substantial evidence.
After the Board’s earlier decision issued, the Agency’s Inspector General issued a report concluding that Member Emanuel had improperly participated on the panel. The Board (Chairman McFerran and Member Wilcox; Member Ring, dissenting), after considering the advice of its Ethics Officer, unanimously agreed that Member Emanuel should have been disqualified, and issued a notice to show cause why its prior decision should not be vacated. After receiving responses, the Board determined that vacating the prior decision would best preserve public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Board’s processes. Accordingly, the Board vacated the decision and held the case for adjudication by a new Board panel.
The new Board panel (Chairman McFerran and Members Wilcox and Prouty; then-Member Kaplan, dissenting; Member Prouty, dissenting in part) re-adjudicated the merits of the case de novo. The Board concluded that Exxon violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to bargain in good faith over the contract proposal on supervisory discretion to grant time off, and violated Section 8(a)(1) by suggesting it was doing so in response to the Union’s filing of unfair-labor-practice charges, and by making statements implying that employees would be better off without the Union because they would receive more paid parental leave.
On review, the Court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in deciding to vacate its prior decision. The Court explained that “the plain text of Section 10(d) grants the NLRB broad authority to modify or set aside its orders,” and that “the only textual limitation, that the authority disappears once ‘the record in a case [is] filed in a court,’ is not applicable here.” Distinguishing the cases Exxon relied on, and rejecting its contention that the Board instead should have been bound by the judicial disqualification statute, the Court held that “the NLRB’s vacatur of the 2020 Decision was, at minimum, based on a legitimate exercise of its statutory authority to reconsider or set aside its prior rulings.”
Additionally, the Court rejected Exxon’s argument that the Board should have let the 2020 Decision stand as a 2-0 majority opinion with one recused panel member, noting that the Supreme Court “has rejected this back-of-the-napkin approach as ethically improper and procedurally insufficient,” citing Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016) (participation by a disqualified judge was “a structural error even if the judge in question did not cast a deciding vote”). Overall, the Court concluded that the Board’s decision to vacate was “defensible in multiple respects: it promotes public confidence in the agency’s ability to issue decisions that are not tainted by ethical or financial conflicts; creates NLRB precedent that vacatur is the proper remedy when a panel member is found to have disqualifying conflicts of interest; and protects the agency from potential legal liability related to unethical decision-making.” Turning to the merits, the Court concluded that the Board’s unfair-labor-practice findings were fully supported by substantial evidence, and enforced the Board’s order.
The Court’s opinion is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 657 (North Center Productions, Inc.) (Netflix Productions, Inc.) (Eye Productions, Inc.) (16-CB-294650, et al.; JD(SF)-05-25) Austin, TX. Administrative Law Judge John T. Giannopoulos issued his decision on March 10, 2025. Charges filed by an individual.
Starbucks Corporation (10-CA-305651, et al.; JD-21-25) Seattle, WA. Administrative Law Judge Paul Bogas issued his decision on March 10, 2025. Charges filed by Workers United, Southern Regional Joint Board.
Watercrest Acquisition I, LLC, d/b/a Krystal Bay Nursing and Rehabilitation Center and Royal Meridian Management Company, LLC, a single employer and joint employers (12-CA-328174; JD-20-25) North Miami Beach, FL. Administrative Law Judge Ira Sandron issued his decision on March 11, 2025. Charge filed by 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East.
Waffle House, Inc. (10-CA-321421; JD-22-25) Norcross, GA. Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan issued his decision on March 13, 2025. Charge filed by Service Employees International Union.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.