NLRB Sweeps Two Superintendents into Bargaining Unit A title with "Superintendent" on it doesn't make someone a supervisor, the NLRB just ruled again. In Alaska Power and Telephone (Case 19-UC-384477, decided June 10), NLRB Region 19 ruled that the company's Power Operations Superintendent and Power Plant Superintendent are NOT statutory supervisors under Section 2(11) — and clarified IBEW Local 1547's bargaining unit to pull both roles in. Why? Because authority on paper isn't authority in practice. Per the Regional Director: * The crews self-assign work off a software queue. The superintendents don't direct it. * Neither superintendent had ever disciplined anyone. Both "believed" they could. Belief isn't evidence. * Hiring, raises, and bonuses ran through upper management and an algorithm. * A payroll specialist could override their leave approvals. The employer carries the burden of proving supervisory status. It couldn't. The lesson for employers: if you want a role excluded from the unit, give it real, documented authority — and actually let the person use it. "It's in his job description" loses every time. Two more dues-paying members, courtesy of a vague org chart and phantom job titles without corresponding duties. How would your "supervisors" hold up? All companies say they would hold up. Would they? #MattAustinLaborLaw #LaborRelations #UnionOrganizing

Employer’s Bargaining Notes Stay Off-Limits from Disclosure to Union The NLRB just declined to make parties hand over their bargaining notes — and that's a win for employers. In a supplemental decision dated June 1, the Board refused to reconsider its 2021 Stericycle I ruling and affirmed the dismissal of a charge that Stericycle unlawfully withheld its negotiation notes from a Teamsters local. Chairman James Murphy and Member Scott Mayer kept the standard in place, adopting the judge's reasoning without much elaboration. The backdrop: a union asked for "bargaining notes concerning, or relating to discussions about administration of attendance discipline during negotiations." Under Stericycle I, those notes are generally exempt from disclosure. Basically, parties need room to formulate positions and strategy at the table without worrying that every scribble becomes discoverable evidence later. The lone Democrat, David Prouty, dissented hard. He argued the notes were "presumptively relevant and essential" to resolving a dispute over how to read a new attendance policy. His core point: contemporaneous bargaining notes "are often the best evidence of what occurs during negotiations," and a blanket privilege "deprives the parties — and the Board — of an important tool in uncovering the truth." He'd overrule Stericycle I entirely. To me, the majority got it right. Negotiations already devolve into he-said-she-said often enough. Forcing employers to produce their internal notes would chill candid prep and hand unions a roadmap to your strategy. Neither helps anyone actually reach a deal — and the Act already has mechanisms to protect genuinely relevant, non-privileged information. But notice what Prouty is telegraphing. This is a 2-1 call resting on a 2021 precedent. Board law swings with its membership. The privilege is safe today; it is not carved in stone. Unions often request to see my bargaining notes and file unfair labor practice charges when I refuse to turn them over. They are hoping one administrative law judge will agree with Member Prouty and rule that I have to turn over my notes. Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local No. 628, 374 NLRB No. 121, Case 04-CA-277775 (6/1/26) #MattAustinLaborLaw #LaborRelations #CollectiveBargaining

Dental Office Learned the Hard Way: No Union, Employees Still Protected by NLRA A Texas dental office just learned a $0-union-membership lesson: you don't need a union for employees to have rights under federal labor law. Here's what happened. Per the NLRB's June 1 decision, a front-desk coordinator at Aqua Dental in Pearland, Texas helped write an anonymous email airing workplace gripes — schedules, pay, micromanagement, people working Saturdays. A coworker helped draft it; her boyfriend sent it. Days later she also asked about bonuses in front of coworkers. Within four days, the employer hit her with three written warnings and fired her. The Board affirmed the judge: that was unlawful discipline and discharge under Section 8(a)(1). The email and the bonus questions were "classic protected concerted activity" — employees acting together about pay and working conditions. Two takeaways for employers. First, no union was anywhere in this case. Section 7 protects concerted activity whether your workforce is organized or not. A group complaint about pay is protected even when it shows up as an anonymous email. Second — and this one stings — the judge flatly noted that protection "does not hinge on an employee's likeability." The employer argued people didn't enjoy working with her. Doesn't matter. You can dislike the messenger and still be on the hook for firing her over a protected message. Shifting rationales for the termination sank the employer. The Board leaned on those inconsistent explanations as evidence of unlawful motive. The takeaway: before you discipline someone who's been complaining about pay or conditions, ask whether they were acting together with coworkers. If the answer is yes, slow down. Floss N Gloss PA d/b/a Aqua Dental, NLRB Case 16-CA-305753 (6/1/26) #MattAustinLaborLaw #UnfairLaborPractice #LaborRelations

Welcome to the latest edition of Labor Relations Weekly - a weekly recap of the most valuable content on labor relations from an employer's perspective. The National Labor Relations Act covers both union and non-union private-sector employers. This newsletter is a digest of my views on labor laws, the National Labor Relations Board, and unions. linkedin.com/feed/update/urn…

Reminder: Don’t Need a Union to Violate Labor Laws A Texas blood bank just lost an NLRB case, and there's not a union anywhere in the story. Employers keep forgetting that the National Labor Relations Act applies to non-union companies, too. An employee at Carter BloodCare posted on Facebook urging coworkers to wear black scrubs on Sundays to protest Sunday assignments. Hashtags: #Solidarity, #TogetherWeCan. About 20 coworkers joined in. Weeks later, management hauled him into a meeting, showed him the post, asked if he was trying to get staff to "rebel," and pulled him from a Leadership Development Plan that was his path back to a promotion. The judge found two violations. The questioning was an unlawful interrogation. And removing him from the program was unlawful retaliation for protected concerted activity. Note: one employee rallying coworkers over working conditions is "concerted" activity under the Act. No union required. Section 7 protects it. Then the unforced errors. They yanked him barely two months into a six-month plan. They'd given another employee with similar mistakes a full four months. And they didn't call his direct supervisor — who'd rated him favorably — so the judge drew an adverse inference against them. Per the judge, the managers were "labor law novices" who didn't grasp what they were saying until it was too late. To me, that's the whole lesson. Your frontline managers don't need a union drive to create liability. Are yours trained for it? #MattAustinLaborLabor #UnionAvoidance

Starbucks Sweeps An NLRB Case Starbucks just beat Workers United on every count. The administrative law judge dismissed the complaint in its entirety. This one came out of the union fight at Starbucks' downtown Seattle stores. The General Counsel threw the usual stack of charges: unlawfully soliciting grievances at "collaboration" sessions, interrogating an employee in a job interview, and — the big one — retaliating against union supporters through a store reorganization. Here's the reorganization. Starbucks merged three downtown stores into a new three-store "Heritage Market" district, made everyone reapply, rehired 40, and didn't rehire 29. The GC called it union retaliation dressed up as restructuring. The judge didn't buy it. She found the Heritage Market was a lawful reorganization with no anti-union animus. The new barista and shift-supervisor roles carried real added requirements and skills — different jobs, not pretext. Employees who chose not to apply, in her words, "acted at their peril." Every other allegation fell too. No unlawful grievance-solicitation. No unlawful interrogation. No constructive discharge. Here's the kicker. The judge is a former NLRB regional attorney — a former agency prosecutor. Starbucks even moved to disqualify her. She denied the motion, then ruled for Starbucks down the line. To me, the lesson is that a genuine business reorganization, built on real job differences and run without animus, holds up — even in a hostile forum. A clean sweep. Congratulations to Starbuck’s legal team! #MattAustinLaborLaw #LaborRelations

How To Lose An NLRB Case In Seven Steps A nonprofit just got hit with a Gissel bargaining order — the nuclear option in labor law — and the decision reads like a checklist of what not to do. Civic Influencers, a get-out-the-vote nonprofit, fired seven employees and rescinded one promotion after staff criticized the CEO and started organizing with the United Professional Organizers. The company said it was broke. The judge wasn't buying it. Here's where it went sideways. The terminations landed nine days after the union asked for recognition. Three of the workers were fired right after they testified at a Board hearing — an 8(a)(4) retaliation charge on top of everything else. The company claimed financial distress, then "performance issues," then a "reorganization." Per the judge, shifting reasons are evidence of discriminatory motive. It kept hiring contractors the whole time and rang in the new year with $294,000 in the bank. Then the killer: the employer ignored a subpoena for personnel and financial records it was legally required to preserve. The judge drew an adverse inference — assuming the missing documents would have hurt the company's defense. Result? Reinstatement and backpay for all seven, plus a Gissel order forcing the company to bargain without an election. To me, the lesson is simple. Timing, documentation, and a consistent story decide these cases. This employer botched all three. Documentation is often your only defense. #MattAustinLaborLaw #UnionOrganizing

Amazon Beats Back Most of the Teamsters' Charges An NLRB administrative law judge just handed Amazon a mostly favorable decision in the Teamsters' San Francisco organizing fight (DCK6 delivery station). The General Counsel threw the kitchen sink at Amazon — a "myriad" of 8(a)(1) and (3) allegations. Surveillance. Threats. Promising perks to ditch the union vests. Stricter rules. The judge dismissed almost all of it. What survived? Two unlawful interrogations by one manager, stricter enforcement of an off-duty access policy, pulling an organizer from a "learning ambassador" program, and one unlawful discharge. The two termination calls are the interesting part. Employee Daniele was fired after riding a stow cart. The judge found Amazon knew he supported the union, showed animus, and the timing looked bad. He still dismissed the charge. Why? The investigation was started by an employee-relations rep who had no idea Daniele was pro-union. No nexus between his union activity and the firing — so no violation. Notably, the judge said Amazon's investigation was "a mess from start to finish" and could have gone lighter. Didn't matter. Sloppy isn't the same as unlawful. The other firing? Different result. The employee used a racial slur during a protected conversation, but under Lion Elastomers' totality test, he kept the Act's protection. That termination got reversed. The lesson for employers: motive is everything, and who starts the investigation matters. #MattAustinLaborLaw #LaborRelations

Culinary Union vs. Las Vegas Airport - Civil Disobedience as Bargaining Pressure mattaustinlaborlaw.com/culin…

Sectoral Bargaining Could Double US Worker Coverage - and Most Employers Have No Plan for It mattaustinlaborlaw.com/secto…

The Cost of "I Just Set Them Free" A new Board decision out of Illinois is the closest thing to a "How-Not-To" manual employers will see all year. Per the NLRB (Atlantic American Fire Protection Co., 374 NLRB No. 114), Sprinkler Fitters Local 281 won an election 10-1 at a small Elgin sprinkler shop in December 2022. Within two weeks, the owner had cancelled the Thanksgiving turkeys, killed the Christmas hams, scrapped the annual 40-hour Christmas bonus, terminated 10 of the unit employees five days before Christmas, refused to bargain, no-showed the first scheduled bargaining session, withdrew recognition, and ignored two information requests. He represented himself at the hearing. Big mistake. His own testimony sealed every violation. He called the workforce a "cancer" and a "rebellion." Said it was his job "to quell that insurrection and put that rebellion down." And the line that ended the case: "They voted to go union, so I just set them free." The Board did not just find violations. It threw the book at the employer. Reinstatement and full backpay for all 10 employees, including direct and foreseeable pecuniary harms under Thryv. A broad Hickmott Foods cease-and-desist. A 120-day posting. The Notice and an Explanation of Rights mailed to every current and former employee since November 2022. The notice read aloud to assembled employees by a high-ranking official. A 12-month Mar-Jac extension of the certification year. And mandatory bargaining — 24 hours per month minimum, 6-hour sessions, written progress reports every 15 days. Two lessons for employers. First, anger isn't a defense. Everything you say after a union wins is evidence. Second, retain counsel before you say a single thing about the result. Going pro se in an unfair labor practice hearing is malpractice on yourself. #LaborRelations #UnionOrganizing #MattAustinLaborLaw

Cannabis Labor Peace Mandates Survive (For Now) mattaustinlaborlaw.com/canna…

NLRB: 8 Weeks is Too Long to Wait on Info Request Last week the Board hit a Puerto Rico janitorial contractor with an 8(a)(5) violation for the most avoidable mistake in labor law: ignoring a union information request. Per the decision (OS-DB-JV-2, LLC, 374 NLRB No. 115), SEIU Local 1996 emailed the employer in February 2024 asking for payroll records, work schedules, and holiday/vacation/sick pay data for unit employees. Standard CBA administration stuff. The employer punted to its lawyers. Then it ghosted. Eight weeks later, it finally responded — not with records, but with citations to CBA articles and a demand that the union "justify" why old data was relevant. The Board wasn't impressed. Two things worth memorizing if you're on the employer side. First, payroll, schedules, and benefit accruals are presumptively relevant. You don't get to make the union explain itself. The Board applies a broad, discovery-type standard — potential relevance is enough. Second, the existence of a CBA doesn't wipe out the relevance of pre-CBA data. Baseline information matters when a union is administering a first contract. And if you can't produce the data in the format requested, you have to say so. Silence is a violation. Basically, when a union information request lands in your inbox, the clock starts. Forwarding it to outside counsel and waiting two months is not pemritted. It's a charge. If your HR team isn't sure how to respond to one of these letters — it's worth a conversation before the Board gets involved. #CollectiveBargaining #LaborRelations #MattAustinLaborLaw

HIPAA, Wright Line, and the Return of Pretext Analysis at the New NLRB mattaustinlaborlaw.com/hipaa…

The Law was on Your Side when You Acted. Then it Changed - Retroactively. Now you Owe $6 Million. mattaustinlaborlaw.com/the-l…

The NLRB just ordered Kuraray America to bargain with a unit of lab analysts it refused to recognize. The case is a textbook run of the "technical refusal to bargain" playbook. Last October, lab analysts at Kuraray's La Porte, Texas plant voted in a self-determination election to join an existing production and maintenance unit represented by UFCW Local 900C. Kuraray refused to bargain. Its argument: the lab analysts didn't share a community of interest with production workers, so the unit wasn't appropriate. On May 22, 2026, the Board granted summary judgment against Kuraray and ordered it to bargain. Here's why this matters. You can't appeal an NLRB election certification straight to a federal court. The only path is to refuse to bargain, get hit with an 8(a)(5) unfair labor practice charge, let the Board find against the employer, and enter an order — then take it up on review to the Court of Appeals. That's what Kuraray is doing. Kuraray also threw constitutional claims at the wall — Fifth and Seventh Amendment, Board member removal protections, separation of powers. The Board cited NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel (1937) and Atlas Roofing (1977) and rejected every one. One quiet employer win buried in a footnote: the General Counsel asked the Board to extend the certification year under Mar-Jac Poultry. The Board said no — because this involved a self-determination election. Per Winkie Mfg. and White Cap, that remedy doesn't apply. Now Kuraray heads to the Circuit Court. The constitutional arguments don't win at the Board, and never have. We'll see what the courts do with the legal arguments. #LaborRelations #CollectiveBargaining #MattAustinLaborLaw

St. Joh's College: Cemex Ruling Does Not Impose a 14-Day RM Petition Deadline mattaustinlaborlaw.com/st-jo…

States Race Ahead of OSHA on Cold-Weather Worker Safety mattaustinlaborlaw.com/state…

How a New York Mayor Can - and Cannot - Support Private Sector Unions mattaustinlaborlaw.com/how-a…

Want to Challenge an NLRB Election? "Refusing to Bargain" Is the Only Option - and it's a Narrow One mattaustinlaborlaw.com/want-…