Posts tagged administrative law judge
NLRB Holds Bargaining Proposal Alone Not an Unlawful Threat
August 20, 2026 // In a recent decision, Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc., a divided National Labor Relations Board held that an employer did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act merely by proposing contract language that would permit discipline for employees who filed “baseless, malicious or harassing grievances.” The board emphasized that placing a proposal on the bargaining table, standing alone, does not constitute an unlawful threat.
Board Overturns ALJ Determination That Starbucks Threatened Worker
August 6, 2026 // The Board majority reversed an administrative law judge and dismissed a complaint alleging that Starbucks unlawfully threatened employees over their ability to pick up shifts at other stores based on union status. Starbucks employees are typically scheduled for fewer than 40 hours a week at their assigned “home store” and routinely “borrow” shifts at other locations to make up hours. In January 2022 the company rolled out an online tool called Shift Marketplace to facilitate this borrowing, and none of the training materials or guides limited borrowing based on whether an employee’s home store was unionized.
Protected Wage Talk: Ninth Circuit Reaffirms Employees’ Right to Discuss Wages
December 9, 2025 // The court also addressed several constitutional challenges raised by NMFA, including the NLRB's for-cause removal protections, adjudication scheme, and combined investigatory and adjudicatory powers. However, it found no merit in NMFA's argument that the NLRB's combined investigatory and adjudicatory functions violated the Fifth Amendment right to due process. The court noted that the NLRB's structure separates investigatory and adjudicatory functions between the General Counsel and the Board, respectively, and NMFA failed to demonstrate any unconstitutional potential for bias.
Fifth Circuit Denies Enforcement of NLRB’s Enhanced Remedies, Widening Circuit Split
November 5, 2025 // The Fifth Circuit now joins the Third Circuit in holding that the Board exceeded its authority under the NLRA by awarding Thryv remedies. The Third Circuit also held that Thryv remedies exceeded the authority granted to the Board under Section 10(c), as we reported here. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit upheld Thryv remedies,
Netflix Spy Kids Production Driver Demands Review From Federal Labor Board in Case Challenging Teamsters Discrimination
June 9, 2025 // Norris’ filing attacks Teamsters Local 657 union bosses’ “hiring hall” arrangement, in which they refer production drivers for jobs based on various “lists” that divide employees up by, among other things, member vs. nonmember status. Norris contends that prioritizing the hiring of union members over nonmembers is a form of discrimination that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) forbids. Evidence presented during trial showed that, using this arrangement, it was virtually impossible for a nonmember to he hired for a driver job before a member.
Amazon faces legal complaint for refusing to negotiate with unionized S.F. workers
April 24, 2025 // A hearing is scheduled for August before an administrative law judge. If the judge rules against Amazon, the company could be ordered to begin negotiations — a move that may influence similar union efforts at warehouses in New York, Atlanta, Chicago and Southern California. The San Francisco workers were part of a national strike last December, calling for higher wages, improved safety and official union recognition.
ALJ Backs Hospital’s Right to Delay Returning Strikers to Work
April 23, 2025 // An NLRB administrative law judge recently confirmed that a California hospital system had the right to keep replacement workers on the job for the duration of its contractual commitment to a staffing agency even though striking employees were ready to return to work. The case, In re Sutter Valley Hospitals,1 clarifies the legality of arrangements that healthcare employers commonly make after receiving a union strike notice to ensure continued patient care.
NLRB’s in-house tribunal undermines fairness and rule of law
February 25, 2025 // Nick felt he’d followed proper procedure and compiled thorough evidence to support his case. But none of it mattered. The NLRB doesn’t have to prosecute its allegations in a proper court of law. In fact, it doesn’t even have to go beyond its own walls. The agency’s general counsel filed the case in-house, applied the NLRB’s own rules (that toss aside standard rules of evidence), and held a hearing in front of an NLRB-employed administrative law judge (ALJ) at the NLRB’s offices. Any appeal of the ALJ’s decision goes to the NLRB itself. Unsurprisingly, the ALJ in Nick’s case ruled against the restaurant and ordered it to rehire the eight employees with backpay. The NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision, including her order to Hiran Management to compensate the employees for any “foreseeable” harm that purportedly resulted from the terminations. These so-called “compensatory damages” are not authorized under the National Labor Relations Act. But the NLRB “discovered” this authority in December 2022—90 years after the labor act was adopted.
Apple accused by US labor board of imposing illegal workplace rules
October 1, 2024 // The National Labor Relations Board in the complaint announced late on Monday claims Apple required employees nationwide to sign illegal confidentiality, non-disclosure, and non-compete agreements and imposed overly broad misconduct and social media policies.
NLRB changes course on consent orders … again
September 11, 2024 // The NLRB refused to return to the Postal Service standard, and it refused to reaffirm UPMC. Instead, the NLRB held that it “should instead entirely end the practice of approving consent orders.” According to the NLRB, it doesn’t matter if the consent order provides a full remedy or partial remedy; the NLRB will no longer accept consent orders. The NLRB relied heavily on Section 102.35(a)(7) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, which states that ALJs may “[h]old conferences for the settlement or simplification of issues by consent of the parties, but not to adjust cases.” According to the Board, a case is “adjust[ed]” if it is resolved short of final adjudication on the merits. A consent order is not a settlement because not all parties agree to its terms, so it must be an improper adjustment of the case, so reasons the NLRB.