July 14, 2025 Here are the most recent, relevant NLRB developments as of July 14, 2025 : 1. Via 313 Union Certified (July 7, 2025) Workers at Via 313’s North Campus restaurant officially won union certification, with Restaurant Workers United recognized as their exclusive bargaining representative. The NLRB dismissed employer objections related to alleged conflicts of interest, voter influence, and workplace misconduct. The employer indicated it may seek review and contested the certification in parallel with ongoing investigation into unfair labor practice charges, which the Board has resumed employerlaborrelations.com+15Eater Austin+15National Labor Relations Board+15 . 2. Acting NLRB General Counsel Warns Against Secret Recordings (June 25, 2025) Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen’s GC Memo 25‑07 states that secretly recording collective bargaining sessions —whether by employers or unions— violates the NLRA , as it undermines mutual trust. Though non-binding until formally adopted, regional offices have received clear instructions to enforce this directive Labor Relations Update . 3. FY 2026 Budget Proposal Cuts and Modernization (May 23, 2025) The NLRB proposed a $285.2 million FY 2026 budget— 4.7% below FY 2025 —while cutting 99 full-time positions. However, the plan includes a $23 million boost for IT upgrades, cybersecurity, and leveraging AI to reduce regional backlog in case processing Labor Relations Update . 4. Fifth Circuit Rebukes Apple Ruling (early July 2025) The Fifth Circuit overturned an NLRB finding that Apple had unlawfully interrogated employees and removed union flyers, citing lack of substantial evidence. This decision narrows the Board’s enforcement powers and highlights the influence appellate courts hold over its findings BeLabor the Point+15Bloomberg Law+15en.wikipedia.org+15 . 5. Board Still Lacks Quorum and Faces Leadership Turmoil The resignation of Board member Gwynne Wilcox by executive order has left the NLRB without the legally required quorum (three sitting members), which has paused major decision-making OnLabor+3employerlaborrelations.com+3en.wikipedia.org+3 . Although a district judge ordered her reinstatement on March 6, 2025, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed that reinstatement. The legal dispute continues in court OnLabor+2managementmemo.com+2en.wikipedia.org+2 . 6. If your Company needs help with understanding the new developments at the NLRB or any other labor relations need, please contact H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates at 1-800-326-3046.

1 Section 7 of the National Labor Relation Act states in part, “Employees shall have the right. . . to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Strikes are included among the concerted activities protected for employees by this section. Section 13 also concerns the right to strike. It reads as follows: 2 Lawful and unlawful strikes . The lawfulness of a strike may depend on the object, or purpose, of the strike, on its timing, or on the conduct of the strikers. The object, or objects, of a strike and whether the objects are lawful are matters that are not always easy to determine. Such issues often have to be decided by the National Labor Relations Board. The consequences can be severe to striking employees and struck employers, involving as they do questions of reinstatement and backpay. 3 Strikes for a lawful object .Employees who strike for a lawful object fall into two classes “economic strikers” and “unfair labor practice strikers.” Both classes continue as employees, but unfair labor practice strikers have greater rights of reinstatement to their jobs. 4 Economic strikers defined . If the object of a strike is to obtain from the employer some economic concession such as higher wages, shorter hours, or better working conditions, the striking employees are called economic strikers. They retain their status as employees and cannot be discharged, but they can be replaced by their employer. If the employer has hired bona fide permanent replacements who are filling the jobs of the economic strikers when the strikers apply unconditionally to go back to work, the strikers are not entitled to reinstatement at that time. However, if the strikers do not obtain regular and substantially equivalent employment, they are entitled to be recalled to jobs for which they are qualified when openings in such jobs occur if they, or their bargaining representative, have made an unconditional request for their reinstatement. 5 Unfair labor practice strikers defined .Employees who strike to protest an unfair labor practice committed by their employer are called unfair labor practice strikers. Such strikers can be neither discharged nor permanently replaced. When the strike ends, unfair labor practice strikers, absent serious misconduct on their part, are entitled to have their jobs back even if employees hired to do their work have to be discharged. 6 If the Board finds that economic strikers or unfair labor practice strikers who have made an unconditional request for reinstatement have been unlawfully denied reinstatement by their employer, the Board may award such strikers backpay starting at the time they should have been reinstated. 7 Strikes unlawful because of purpose Section 8(b)(4) of the Act prohibits strikes for certain objects even though the objects are not necessarily unlawful if achieved by other means. An example of this would be a strike to compel Employer A to cease doing business with Employer B. It is not unlawful for Employer A voluntarily to stop doing business with Employer B, nor is it unlawful for a union merely to request that it do so. It is, however, unlawful for the union to strike with an object of forcing the employer to do so. These points will be covered in more detail in the explanation of Section 8(b)(4). In any event, employees who participate in an unlawful strike may be discharged and are not entitled to reinstatement. 8 Strikes unlawful because of timing —Effect of no-strike contract. A strike that violates a no-strike provision of a contract is not protected by the Act, and the striking employees can be discharged or otherwise disciplined, unless the strike is called to protest certain kinds of unfair labor practices committed by the employer. It should be noted that not all refusals to work are considered strikes and thus violations of no-strike provisions. A walkout because of conditions abnormally dangerous to health, such as a defective ventilation system in a spray-painting shop, has been held not to violate a no-strike provision. 9 Strikes at end of contract period .Section 8(d) provides that when either party desires to terminate or change an existing contract, it must comply with certain conditions. If these requirements are not met, a strike to terminate or change a contract is unlawful and participating strikers lose their status as employees of the employer engaged in the labor dispute. If the strike was caused by the unfair labor practice of the employer, however, the strikers are classified as unfair labor practice strikers and their status is not affected by failure to follow the required procedure. 10 Strikes unlawful because of misconduct of strikers . Strikers who engage in serious misconduct in the course of a strike may be refused reinstatement to their former jobs. This applies to both economic strikers and unfair labor practice strikers. Serious misconduct has been held to include, among other things, violence and threats of violence. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a “sitdown” strike, when employees simply stay in the plant and refuse to work, thus depriving the owner of property, is not protected by the law. Examples of serious misconduct that could cause the employees involved to lose their right to reinstatement are: Strikers physically blocking persons from entering or leaving a struck plant. Strikers threatening violence against nonstriking employees. Strikers attacking management representatives.  11 Section 8(g)—Striking or Picketing a Health Care Institution Without Notice. Section 8(g) prohibits a labor organization from engaging in a strike, picketing, or other concerted refusal to work at any health care institution without first giving at least 10 days’ notice in writing to the institution and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.

Weekly emails that you receive are current cases at the NLRB that H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates, a Labor Relations Firm, are working on at the NLRB throughout the US. 1 .If an employer has a union contract without a successorship clause , whether a new purchaser must honor the union contract depends on the nature of the sale and what happens afterward. Here's a breakdown based on U.S. labor law under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and relevant case law: 2. A. Asset Sale (Only the Assets Are Purchased) 3.General Rule : In an asset sale , the buyer is NOT automatically bound by the seller’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA). 4.However, under successorship doctrine (see NLRB v. Burns International Security Services , 406 U.S. 272 (1972)), if the buyer: 5.Retains a majority of the predecessor’s workforce, and 6. Continues a substantially similar business ,then the buyer is a "successor employer" and must recognize and bargain with the union—but does not have to adopt the existing contract . 7. Key Point : The buyer must not explicitly or implicitly agree to assume the union contract unless they want to. 8. B. Stock Sale (Ownership of Company Changes, Not the Entity Itself) 9. In a stock sale , the legal entity remains the same , only the ownership changes. 10. The existing CBA and union relationship remain in effect because the employer is still the same legal entity . 11. So, the buyer cannot avoid the union contract by purchasing the business through a stock transaction. 12. If an Employer has any issues regarding the purchase of a company with a union contract , or any other labor relations issue at the NLRB, please contact Sanford Rudnick JD At 1-800-326 3046 sandy@rudnickpro.com or www.Theunionexpert.com

1.Weekly emails that you receive are current cases at the NLRB that H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates, a Labor Relations Firm, are working on at the NLRB throughout the US. 2. In 2024, the IBEW union throughout the country are now filing meritless NLRB charges against Employers for bargaining in bad faith for installing dash cam cameras into their trucks without bargaining with the union. The IBEW states that they have the right to bargain with an Employer even when they have an existing contract with the Employer but the contract is silent on the installation of cameras into their trucks. 3. The Employer's have a management rights clause that allows Employers to any actions on a unilateral basis without bargaining with the union that relate to safety of their equipment and their employees to reduce accidents. 4.Employers are contending the union waived its right to bargain over the implementation of the Cameras since their Management Rights Clause allowed the Employers to do it. 5.In Endurance Environmental Solutions, 373 NLRB No. 141(2024), the NLRB reversed the “contract coverage” standard by MV Transportation and reinstated the “clear and unmistakable waiver standard to determine if the union waived its right to bargain with an employer concerning the installation of cameras into their trucks. 6.This change requires Employers to demonstrate that a union has explicitly waived its right to bargain over specific changes to the terms and conditions to a section of an agreement. The Board emphasized that vague or broad management rights clauses are insufficient to justify unilateral changes without bargaining. 7.Employers are contending that its management rights clause does specify that an Employer's can take unilateral actions without bargaining with the union that are related to safety, that is, installing dash cam cameras into their trucks not for surveillance of its employees. Installation of cameras into their trucks reduces employee accidents substantially. 8. Pursuant to the case, Stern Produce vs NLRB No. 23, 1100, DC Cir. 2024, an employer was allowed to install cameras into its trucks for safety purposes for the employees and not for surveillance and monitoring of its employees. 9. Thus, Employers can implement dash cam cameras into their trucks by using their Management Rights Clause without bargaining with the union if the clause relates safety of its employees and trucks. 10. If an Employer has any issues regarding not bargaining with a union over the installation of cameras into their trucks or any other labor relations issue at the NLRB, please contact Sanford Rudnick JD At 1-800-326 3046 sandy@rudnickpro.com or www.Theunionexpert.com

1.Emails that you receive are current cases at the NLRB that H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates are working on at the NLRB throughout the US. 2. The Pipefitters 669 union filed several unfair labor practices charges at the NLRB against an Employer for 8(1) and 8(3) violations of the NLRB Act alleging the Employer terminated several employees for union activities and making many antiunion statements against the Union. The Employer laid off several employees for legitimate business reasons pursuant to Wright line. Also, the Employer did not make these antiunion statements. 3. The Employer submitted affidavits and his statement of position to the NLRB. Rather than waiting for the NLRB to make a decision, which could be months since it does not have a general counsel, it decided it would enter a non board settlement with the union. 4. The non board settlement with the Pipefitters Union took several weeks but the Employer agree to pay back some backpay to the employees and posted a notice for 60 days that the Employer would not make these alleged antiunion statements in the future. 5. The non board settlement by the Employer and the union saved them thousands of dollars in litigation costs and years of litigation if the NLRB issued a complaint. Also, it shows that the Employer and the Union can cooperate together to resolve labor issues. 6. If an Employer has any issues regarding a non board settlement at the NLRB, or any other labor relations issues at the NLRB, please contact Sanford Rudnick JD At 1-800-326 3046 sandy@rudnickpro.com or www.Theunionexpert.com

1.Emails that you receive are current cases at the NLRB that H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates are working on at the NLRB throughout the US. 2.Now it is legal for recreational use in 24 states, the cannabis industry has become a major economic force in the United States, employing over 400,000 people. While cannabis is still unlawful under federal law , state-level legalization has made cannabis less of a black market, as run-of-the-mill health codes, employment laws, and other regulations now apply to cannabis businesses. 3.So does the National Labor Relations Act. While some cannabis workers (i.e. those who grow and harvest the plant) are agricultural employees outside the NLRA’s purview, many others who work in dispensaries and processing facilities are subject to federal labor law, as Michelle outlined here . In recent years, unions including the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Teamsters have organized cannabis workers, now representing tens of thousands of them. Understanding Labor Peace Requirements 4.But states have also passed their own laws impacting labor relations in the cannabis industry. California law requires any cannabis business with 10 or more employees to enter into a “labor peace agreement” with a “bona fide labor organization,” i.e. a union. Several other states also encourage the agreements in some form in the cannabis industry. A labor peace agreement is a contract between an employer and a union in which the union agrees not to disrupt the employer’s operations, typically by refraining from any strikes, pickets, boycotts, or other campaigns. 5.On their face, labor peace agreements may appear to hinder unions, because the unions surrender their most powerful forms of collective action. But in practice, employers must offer unions significant concessions in order to get the unions to sign these agreements, often granting the unions the right to organize the employers’ workforces on favorable terms such as card check. 6. Accordingly, as the Ninth Circuit has observed , unions often advocate for states and cities to require labor peace agreements in certain sectors. Because these agreements transform the playing field for union organizing, states and cities typically craft labor peace requirements to fall within the market participant exception to federal labor preemption (the contours of which I have analyzed here ), applying them to government-backed or government-owned ventures like airports and infrastructure projects. 7.If an Employer has any issues regarding a union in the cannabis Industry or any other labor relations issue at the NLRB, please contact Sanford Rudnick JD At 1-800-326 3046 sandy@rudnickpro.com or www.Theunionexpert.com

1.Employers should note that the weekly emails that are being sent from H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates are current cases at the NLRB or audits by Trust Funds. 2.A Trust Fund audited an Employer for health and welfare payments. 3.The Trust Fund stated the Employer owed over $100,000. 4.The Employer stated there was an oral agreement between the Union and the Employer and that the Employer did not need to make benefit payments. 5.According to Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Kroger Co., 226 F.3d 903 (7th Cir. 2000) the court held: In this case, the employer argued that the union orally agreed that certain contributions were not required. The court considered the issue of whether an oral agreement could override the written terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The court held that while oral agreements might be considered in some contexts, they cannot modify the explicit terms of a CBA unless there is a clear and mutual understanding between the parties. 6.Since the employer and the union had a specific in writing concerning the oral agreement, the trust fund allowed the audit to be modified to reflect the oral Agreement. 7. If your Company is going through an Trust Audit and needs some defenses to the audit, please contact H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates at 1-800-326-3046.

1.When is legal for the Federal Government by ICE or HLS to Arrest an illegal immigrant. 2.INTRODUCTION The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), lawfully apprehended the Respondent, an undocumented alien present in the United States without lawful status, based on probable cause that Respondent posed a threat to public safety and was removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Respondent has a documented history of criminal activity, including [e.g., felony conviction, gang affiliation, or violent conduct], making the arrest not only lawful but necessary to protect the community. 3.ARGUMENT 4. ICE Possesses Statutory Authority to Arrest Removable Aliens 4(A) Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), ICE officers are authorized to: "...arrest any alien in the United States if the officer has reason to believe that the alien is in the United States in violation of any law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest." The Respondent, an undocumented immigrant, is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). These provisions clearly grant ICE the authority to detain and initiate removal proceedings. 4(B). The Arrest Was Based on Probable Cause and Respondent’s Criminal Conduct Probable cause existed for the arrest, based on: - Information that the Respondent lacked valid immigration documentation; - A prior [e.g., felony conviction for assault, DUI, drug trafficking]; - Verified information from local law enforcement or a national database (NCIC, IDENT, etc.); - Evidence of gang or cartel affiliation (if applicable). In United States v. Olivares-Rangel, 458 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2006), the court held that immigration arrests are lawful if supported by probable cause and executed under statutory authority. Here, ICE acted fully within legal limits. 4 (C). There Was No Constitutional Violation ICE officers conducted the arrest in accordance with Fourth Amendment standards, including: - No unreasonable search or seizure; - No use of excessive force; - Arrest conducted in a public place or pursuant to valid administrative warrant. Under INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984), civil immigration enforcement actions do not trigger the same exclusionary rule protections as criminal proceedings unless there is egregious conduct—which is not alleged or evidenced here. 11 4 (D). Public Safety Justifies Detention Pending Proceedings Under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), ICE is required to detain certain categories of aliens, including those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude, controlled substances, or crimes of violence. The Respondent falls within these categories. Given the Respondent’s background, their continued presence in the community poses an unacceptable risk, justifying detention without bond pending resolution of removal proceedings. 5.CONCLUSION The arrest and detention of the Respondent were entirely lawful under federal immigration law and constitutional principles. ICE officers acted within their legal authority and in the interest of public safety. 6.If an Employer has any issues regarding the arrest of one of your employees since they were an illegal immigrant which might violate the NLRB Act as well, or any other labor relations issue at the NLRB, please contact Sanford Rudnick JD At 1-800-326-3046 sandy@rudnickpro.com or www.Theunionexpert.com

1. An Employer can Install Cameras into their Trucks Without bargaining with the Union. 2. If a union that does not have any language in their contract about installation of cameras, it allows an Employer to install cameras into their trucks for safety purposes pursuant to its management rights clause. 3. The Employer cannot install cameras for union surveillance or monitoring of the employees which is a violation of the NLRB Act. 4. The installation of the cameras must be for strictly safety purposes. 5. Clear and Unmistakable Waiver: Employers need to ensure any waivers of bargaining rights related to camera installation are explicit and unambiguous. 6. If an Employer has any issues installing cameras into their trucks without bargaining with the union or any other labor relations issue at the NLRB, please contact Sanford Rudnick JD At 1-800-326-3046 sandy@rudnickpro.com or www.Theunionexpert.com