Summary of NLRB Decisions for Week of March 17 - 21, 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
Dumbo 301 LLC d/b/a Magic Tavern (19-CA-322582; 374 NLRB N. 22) Portland, OR, March 21, 2025.
The Board granted the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment based on the Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the complaint. The Board found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging an employee for engaging in protected concerted activities, including by raising workplace safety and work flow concerns; threatening employees with discipline or discharge for making statements critical of the Respondent and/or its employees to or around customers; promulgating and maintaining prohibitions against making statements critical of the same; responding with physical violence when employees engage in concerted work stoppages, including picketing; and surveilling the protected concerted activities of employees engaged in concerted work stoppages, including picketing.
Charge filed by Actors’ Equity Association. Chairman Kaplan and Members Prouty and Wilcox participated.
***
Unpublished Board Decisions in Representation and Unfair Labor Practice Cases
R Cases
No Unpublished R Cases Issued.
C Cases
UNITE HERE, Local 26 (Encore Boston Harbor) (10-CB-319086) Boston, MA, March 20, 2025. No exceptions having been filed to the February 14, 2025 decision of Administrative Law Judge Susannah Merritt’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 an individual.
***
Appellate Court Decisions
Russell Reid Waste Hauling and Disposal Service Company, Inc., Board Case No. 22-CA-263364 (reported at 373 NLRB No. 51) (3d Cir. Mar. 19, 2025).
In an unpublished opinion, the Third Circuit enforced the Board’s order that issued against this provider of sanitation and non-hazardous liquid-waste services at a facility in Keasbey, New Jersey, for an unfair labor practice committed prior to a mail-ballot election among its employees in 2020, which resulted in a vote of 23 to 11 against representation by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 825. Specifically, the Board (Members Prouty and Wilcox; then-Member Kaplan, dissenting) found that the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by issuing a memorandum to eligible voters prior to the election that delayed an annual wage increase until after the election, expressly conditioned “eligibility” for the increases on non-union status, failed to assure eligible voters that they would receive the increase after the election, and placed the onus for the delay on the Union. In its order, the Board also severed the representation proceeding from the unfair-labor-practice case and remanded for a second election to be conducted.
As a preliminary matter, the Court held it had no jurisdiction to review the Employer’s argument that the removal protections afforded the Board’s Administrative Law Judges were unconstitutional because the argument had not been presented to the Board as required by Section 10(e) of the Act, and citing its similar rejection of the argument in NLRB v. Starbucks Corp., 125 F.4th 78 (3d Cir. 2024). Also on Section 10(e) grounds, the Court held that it could not consider a First Amendment claim raised by the Employer.
On the merits, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s unfair-labor-practice finding, and agreed that the Employer’s memo had the tendency to coerce a reasonable employee not to exercise their right to choose union representation. The Court explained that the memo explicitly told the employees that to receive an increase that they “must not be part of a collective bargaining unit,” and that therefore a reasonable employee would believe they would not receive an increase if the Union won the election. Lastly, the Court dismissed that portion of the Employer’s petition for review that challenged the basis of the Board’s determination to remand for a new election, finding it had no jurisdiction to reach the issue.
The Court’s decision is here.
***
Administrative Law Judge Decisions
Starbucks Corporation (14-CA-334485; JD-23-25) Saint Ann, MO. Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin issued his decision on March 17, 2025. Charge filed by Chicago and Midwest Regional Joint Board of Workers United/Service Employees International Union.
All Metals Recycling, LLC, and Aliquippa Recycling & Metals Processing, LLC, as a single-integrated enterprise (06-CA-316870; JD-24-25) Pittsburgh, PA. Administrative Law Judge Susannah Merritt issued her decision on March 18, 2025. Charge filed by an individual.
Starbucks Corporation (16-CA-304046, et al.; JD(SF)-06-25) Austin and Houston, TX. Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Ringler issued his decision on March 20, 2025. Charges filed by Workers United, a/w Service Employees International Union.
***
To have the NLRB’s Weekly Summary of Cases delivered to your inbox each week, please subscribe here.