1.Supreme Court’s Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney In Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court held that when the NLRB seeks a Section 10(j) injunction, courts must apply the traditional four-factor Winter test 1.likelihood of success on the merits, 2.irreparable harm, 3.balance of equities, 4.public interest), rejecting any special, relaxed standard for the NLRB. Wikipedia 2. If you need any assistance to get an nlrb injunction or any other labor relations, please call H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates at 800-326-3046, www.the unionexpert.com

September 22, 2025 1.Can an Employer use its management rights clause to implement cameras into his trucks without negotiating with their union. Issue Presented 2.Whether the collective-bargaining agreement between the employer and the union contained a clear and unmistakable (or clear and convincing) waiver permitting the employer to install cameras without bargaining, as addressed in Endurance Environmental Solutions, 372 NLRB No. 141 (2023). (EES) Applicable Law 3.Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) imposes a duty on employers to bargain collectively with the representative of their employees concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. 4.Two key doctrines inform this analysis: A. Contract-Coverage Standard: As articulated in MV Transportation, 368 NLRB No. 66 (2019), an employer may act unilaterally if the collective-bargaining agreement’s management-rights clause or other provisions provide coverage for the specific action. B. Waiver Standard: To demonstrate a waiver of the right to bargain, the employer bears the burden of showing clear and unmistakable evidence that the union waived its bargaining rights regarding the specific action. Analysis 5.In Endurance Environmental Solutions (EES), the Board examined whether the employer’s management-rights clause, which included general safety language, constituted a clear and unmistakable waiver permitting installation of inward-facing cameras in trucks without bargaining. 6.The Board concluded that the clause did not meet the "clear and unmistakable standard". The clause referenced the employer’s right to implement safety measures but did not explicitly mention surveillance, cameras, or monitoring technology. Absent explicit contractual language granting the employer the unilateral right to implement such surveillance, the Board held that the union retained its bargaining rights. It is possible the Employer violated 8A5 of the Act. 7. If you need any assistance concerning implementing cameras into your trucks without bargaining with the union or any other labor relations, please call H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates at 800-326-3046, www.the unionexpert.com for a free case analysis 24/7

NLRB'S NEW LEGAL STANDARD FOR SALTING In U.S. labor law, salting is a union-organizing tactic in which one or more union members (called salts ) apply for jobs with a non-union employer—often without disclosing their union affiliation—with the intent to organize that workforce from the inside once hired. What GC Memo 25-08 says / changes / emphasizes Here are the key points and changes from GC Memo 25-08: 1.Supersedes Prior Guidance It rescinds the previous guideline memorandum (GC 08-04 (Revised) re: Toering Electric Company) and replaces it. CDF Labor Law 2.Emphasis on Toering standard The Memo clarifies that Toering should fully govern salting cases going forward. That means Regions must evaluate both (a) whether the applicant submitted/authorized an application, and (b) whether the applicant had a genuine interest in employment, in addition to satisfying the FES requirements. CDF Labor Law+1 The GC must prove these components by a preponderance of the evidence. CDF Labor Law+1 3.Case processing / Investigation focus Investigators (Regional Offices) are instructed to focus early on collecting evidence from the charging party (e.g. the applicant/union) rather than immediately seeking employer evidence. The logic is to determine first whether the basic Toering factors are satisfied (application + genuine interest). If not, the GC may dismiss the charge without burdening the employer. CDF Labor Law+3CDF Labor Law+3Littler Mendelson P.C.+3 In salting campaigns that submit “mass” or “batch” applications, Regions should determine whether each applicant authorized the submission of an application on their behalf. CDF Labor Law+1 4.Evidence of genuine interest Regions should probe to see if the applicant’s behavior and application materials show a genuine interest. Instances that may weigh against genuine interest include: refusing similar employment with the employer in the past; antagonistic or offensive remarks or behavior in the application or interview; incomplete or stale applications; conduct inconsistent with the normal expectations of someone applying for a job. CDF Labor Law+1 Just stating one would have accepted a job offer isn’t sufficient alone. The GC must later (if challenged by employer) rebut evidence of insincerity. CDF Labor Law+1 5.When employer evidence is solicited Only after the charging party’s evidence meets the Toering factors (or the issue is otherwise unclear), the Region should seek evidence from the employer. If the evidence from the charging party is lacking (e.g. no proof of application or no proof of genuine interest), the GC should consider dismissing early rather than proceeding to employer discovery. CDF Labor Law+1 6.Backpay period and remedies The Memo directs Regions to conduct “pre-complaint backpay investigations” for meritorious cases to determine how long the salt applicant would have worked if hired. Cannot assume indefinite tenure. Factors considered include the applicant’s personal circumstances, whether union plans or instructions affect duration, historical duration of salts’ employment, etc. CDF Labor Law+1 Also, employer should be able to provide evidence that reduces or negates the backpay claim. CDF Labor Law 7.Referral to Division of Advice Cases should be submitted to the Division of Advice when evidence from the charging party does not clearly resolve application submission / authenticity or genuine interest issues, or when there’s uncertainty whether the applicant is genuinely interested. CDF Labor Law 8. If you need any assistance concerning Salting cases or any other labor relations, please call H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates at 800-326-3046, www.the unionexpert.com for a free case analysis 24/7

September 2, 2025 1 . President Nominates Two Lawyers to Restore NLRB Functionality 2 . The Trump administration has submitted two nominations to the Senate— Scott Mayer (Boeing labor counsel) and James Murphy (veteran NLRB official)—to fill vacant seats and restore a Republican majority. Once confirmed, these appointments would enable the Board to regain quorum and resume adjudicating cases. A Republican-majority Board is expected to overturn some of the pro-union precedents from the Biden era 3. As of mid-February 2025, the NLRB was operating without a quorum, with only two members (Chairman Marvin Kaplan and Member David Prouty) after President Trump fired Board Chairperson Gwynne Wilcox on January 27, 2025. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) requires three members for a quorum to issue decisions or engage in rulemaking. 4.NLRB has increased elections for 2024 and 2025 5 . The NLRB faced significant challenges in 2024 and early 2025, including a 27% increase in union elections compared to 2023, totaling 1,943 elections, often under expedited rules. Strike activity also increased, reflecting heightened labor activity. 6. If your firm needs any assistance relating to increased election activity at the NLRB or any other labor relations issues please contact, Sanford Rudnick JD at 1-800-326-3046 or www.theunionexpert.com

August 25, 2025 The following GC Memo is an important update and development at the NLRB for 8-25-25. If you have any questions about the new NLRB updates, please contact the office of H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates which is as follows: www.theunionexpert.com 800-326-3036 (O) 2. Continued Lack of NLRB Quorum The NLRB remains without the quorum required to issue decisions—due to the firing and legal battles over the reinstatement of board member Gwynne Wilcox after President Trump’s removal of her earlier in the year. The Supreme Court has issued a temporary stay on her reinstatement, keeping the board functionally paralyzed. Wikipedia+1 3. General Counsel Guidance GC Memo 25-10 (released August 7, 2025): Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued revised guidance concerning when unfair labor practice (ULP) charges should be deferred to grievance and arbitration processes under collective bargaining agreements. laborrelationsupdate.com 4 . If your firm needs any assistance relating to the deferral doctrine at the NLRB or any other labor relations issues please contact, Sanford Rudnick JD at 1-800-326-3046 or www.theunionexpert.com

Key NLRB Updates (as of August 18, 2025) 1. State Labor Boards Likely Preempted by Federal Authority A senior NLRB official, Acting General Counsel William Cowen, has warned that proposals in at least three states —including New York, California, and Massachusetts—to regulate private-sector labor relations in the absence of an NLRB quorum are likely preempted by the National Labor Relations Act , which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the NLRB. The NLRB continues to operate, though without a full quorum, and judges these state efforts as likely invalid under federal law. Reuters 2. Acting GC Issues Guidance on Deferring ULP Charges to Grievance Processes (GC Memorandum 25-10) On August 7, 2025 , the Acting General Counsel released GC Memo 25-10 , offering new guidance on when unfair labor practice (ULP) charges can be deferred to grievance and arbitration procedures rather than pursued directly before the NLRB. It clarifies use of: Dubo deferral (if a grievance exists and the ULP can likely be resolved via the CBA grievance process), and Collyer deferral (when no grievance has yet been filed, but deferral might still be appropriate). Cowen emphasized the need to conserve the NLRB's limited resources during a period of staffing shortages and growing caseload. JD Supra onlabor.org 3. NLRB Sharpening Focus on “Union Salting” Tactics On July 24, 2025 , the Acting GC issued updated guidance concerning union salting —the practice where organizers seek employment with non-union employers to facilitate organizing. The new guidance tightens scrutiny on how these cases will be handled, including evaluating whether organizers have a genuine interest in the work or are solely trying to provoke organizing. JD Supra 4. Federal Courts Advance Key Labor Law Issues Amid NLRB Quorum Void Although the NLRB itself hasn’t issued precedential rulings in 2025 due to quorum issues, federal appellate courts have continued shaping labor law: D.C. Circuit (Grove v. NLRB): Vacated an NLRB impasse ruling, emphasizing the need for objective evidence in impasse determinations rather than relying on a union’s denial. Labor Relations Update Fourth Circuit (Welch): Validated vigorous union advocacy—including leafleting and litigation support—as protected activity under the NLRA. Labor Relations Update Also of note: the Supreme Court recently declined to review a Ninth Circuit decision regarding dues checkoff, leaving lower federal court deference to NLRB interpretations reduced in the wake of Loper Bright . Labor Relations Update 5. No New Published NLRB Board Decisions This Week (Week of August 4–8, 2025) The weekly summary for early August shows no published Board decisions , though several decisions were issued by Administrative Law Judges in various cases (e.g., Amazon, Envision Hospice, Twin City Tanning). National Labor Relations Board 6. Agency Facing Budget and Staffing Cuts—A Threat to Enforcement Democratic lawmakers have issued warnings that recent budget cuts and office closures (in cities like Buffalo, Memphis, Los Angeles, and others) could severely impair the NLRB’s ability to enforce labor rights. These changes have been labeled “catastrophic” by critics and union representatives alike. The Guardian 7. NLRB Status Still in Quorum Limbo The NLRB continues to function without a quorum, largely stalling any new precedential actions this year. While Acting GC Cowen remains in place, the Board’s full reconstitution depends on pending nominations and ongoing litigation over previous removals. Bloomberg Law Wikipedia 8. If your firm need any assistance relating to the above NLRB updates or any other labor relations issues please contact, Sanford Rudnick JD at 1-800-326-3046 or www.theunionexpert.com

August 11, 2025 1.The following case is a current case at the NLRB at the office of H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates which is as follows: www.theunionexpert.com 2. To win, a alter ego case against an employer, the union must prove either alter ego status or successor employer status. The defense goal is to show that neither applies . 3 . Defense Against Alter Ego Claim by Employer The NLRB alter ego test generally looks for: Substantially identical ownership Same management Same business purpose Same operations Same equipment/customers Same supervision and employees Plus — whether there was an anti-union motive in the restructuring. 4. Key Defense Points for Employer : a. Different Ownership - No shared ownership or stockholders. This difference is significant under Southport Petroleum Co., 72 NLRB 1146 (1947) and its progeny. b. Different Business Purpose & Market – That’s a different market segment, different customers, and often different bidding processes. c. Different Operations – New company has separate offices, no use of the old company’s tools/equipment (if true), no transfer of contracts or jobs from the old company. d. No Continuity of Workforce – Employees from the union company were not automatically hired into the new company. If any were hired, it was incidental and not wholesale. e. No Anti-Union Motive – Closure was due to legitimate business/economic reasons, not to avoid union obligations. Scott Cook’s company was formed as a separate venture in a different market, not as a continuation. 5. Defense Against Successor/Refusal-to-Bargain Claim The NLRB’s successor employer doctrine (from NLRB v. Burns Security Services , 406 U.S. 272 (1972)) says a new employer may have to recognize and bargain with a union if: It continues essentially the same business operations, Employs a majority of the predecessor’s employees, and The bargaining unit remains appropriate. 7. If your firm need any assistance relating to the above claim that an Employer is not an alter ego or a successor Employer and that it will not negotiate with the union or any other labor relations issues please contact, Sanford Rudnick JD at 1-800-326-3046 or www.theunionexpert.com

August 4, 2025 The following case is a current case at the NLRB at the office of H. Sanford Rudnick & Assoicates which is as follows: www.theunionexpert.com 1. When an employer with a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) shuts down and lays off all employees, the obligation to provide notice to the union regarding non-renewal of the union contract depends on specific legal and contractual requirements. Here’s a concise analysis based on U.S. labor law, primarily under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA): 2. CBA Termination or Non-Renewal Notice : 3.Under Section 8(d) of the NLRA, employers are generally required to provide notice to the union at least 60 days before the expiration of a CBA if they intend to terminate or modify the agreement. This applies even if the employer is ceasing operations, unless the shutdown eliminates the bargaining unit entirely. 4.However, if the employer is permanently closing the business and dissolving the bargaining unit (i.e., no successors or ongoing operations), the obligation to provide notice of non-renewal may be moot, as the CBA effectively terminates with the closure. Courts and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have held that when an employer goes out of business, the duty to bargain over the CBA’s renewal or effects may not apply if there is no ongoing employer-employee relationship. 5.Effects Bargaining : 6.Even if notice of non-renewal is not required, the employer may still have a duty to bargain with the union over the effects of the closure, such as severance, accrued benefits, or other terms impacting laid-off employees. This obligation persists unless the union waives its rights or the employer can demonstrate an economic exigency (e.g., sudden, unavoidable closure). 7.The NLRB case First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB (1981) clarifies that employers must bargain over the effects of a decision to close, even if the decision itself is not subject to bargaining. 8. WARN Act Considerations : 9.Under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, employers with 100 or more employees must provide 60 days’ notice of a plant closing or mass layoff to employees, their union (if applicable), and certain government entities. This is separate from CBA non-renewal notice but may overlap with union notification requirements. 10. Some CBAs include specific notice provisions for layoffs or closures, which could require additional notifications beyond federal law. 11. Contractual Provisions : 12.The CBA itself may contain clauses specifying notice requirements for termination, non-renewal, or plant closure. Even if the business shuts down, these contractual obligations may still apply unless the closure legally terminates the agreement. Reviewing the CBA’s language is critical. 13. Practical Considerations : 14.If the employer is ceasing all operations and liquidating, the union may not pursue non-renewal notice issues, as the practical impact is negligible. However, failure to provide notice could lead to unfair labor practice charges or claims for back pay or benefits if the union argues that employees were harmed. 15.If the employer is selling assets or transferring operations to a successor, the successor may inherit CBA obligations, depending on the sale structure and NLRB precedent (e.g., Burns International Security Services (1972)). 16.Conclusion : If the employer is permanently shutting down, laying off all employees, and dissolving the bargaining unit, they likely do not need to provide notice of non-renewal of the CBA, as the agreement terminates with the closure. However, they may still need to: Bargain over the effects of the closure. Comply with WARN Act notice requirements (if applicable). Adhere to any specific notice provisions in the CBA. 17. If your firm need any assistance relating to the above NLRB on an Employer shut and giving the union notice that is will not negotiatiate or any other labor relations issues please contact, Sanford Rudnick JD at 1-800-326-3046 or www.theunionexpert.com

July 28, 2025 Key Updates from the NLRB (as of July 28, 2025) 1. Via 313 Workers Certified Their Union (July 7, 2025) Workers at Via 313’s North Campus restaurant officially won union certification under Restaurant Workers United. The NLRB dismissed employer objections related to conflicts of interest, voter influence, and allegations of misconduct. The company plans to challenge the certification while an existing unfair labor practice investigation continues. BeLabor the Point+5theunionexpert.com+5National Labor Relations Board+5 2. Fifth Circuit Rejects NLRB Order Against Apple (July 2025) In Apple Inc. (5th Cir., July 7, 2025), the Court refused to enforce an NLRB order that found Apple violated Section 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating a union supporter and confiscating union flyers. The court held those findings lacked substantial evidence under applicable case law. National Labor Relations Board 3. Regional Directors Struggling Amid Lack of Quorum With only two board members following the removal of Democratic member Gwynne Wilcox, the NLRB has lacked a quorum and cannot issue binding decisions. Some employers are challenging the authority of regional directors to act unilaterally during this stalemate. Wikipedia+5OnLabor+5McKnight's Senior Living+5 4. Trump Nominates Two Republicans to Fill Vacancies (July 17–18, 2025) President Trump nominated Scott Mayer and James Murphy to restore a Republican majority on the Board. If confirmed, they are expected to reverse many pro‑union Biden-era precedents, including policies on captive‑audience meetings and union formation procedures. theunionexpert.com+10Reuters+10JD Supra+10 5. ExxonMobil Case: Board’s 2020 Order Vacated & Reinstated The Fifth Circuit upheld the NLRB’s decision to vacate a prior 2020 order due to conflict of interest by a Board member. The court affirmed that Exxon unlawfully refused to bargain in good faith and retaliated against a union, rejecting Exxon’s petition. National Labor Relations Board+2Justia Law+2National Labor Relations Board+2 6 Underlying Trends & Legal Implications A. Board paralysis : Since the firing of Gwynne Wilcox in January 2025, the NLRB has lacked a quorum—halting many decisions and complaint resolutions. Execution now heavily relies on regional directors and pending Senate confirmations. JD Supra+5Wikipedia+5Reuters+5 B. Potential shift in precedent : If Mayer and Murphy are confirmed, expect a return to earlier, management‑friendly labor board policies, including re-interpretation of Section 7 rights and permissible employer speech. BeLabor the Point+4JD Supra+4Bloomberg Law+4 C. Supreme Court influence : A May 2025 ruling allowing removal of independent agency members (including NLRB board members) is likely to shape future governance norms. theunionexpert.com+3The Wall Street Journal+3Reuters+3 8.Quick Takeaway  As of July 28, 2025 , the NLRB is in a state of operational limbo. A lack of quorum has prevented the board from issuing new binding decisions, while key appellate courts have issued notable rulings affecting labor law enforcement. The pending Senate confirmation of two board nominees could pivot the agency from its recent pro‑union direction back toward management-aligned policies. 9. If your firm need any assistance relating to the above NLRB cases or any other labor relations issues please contact, Sanford Rudnick JD at 1-800-326-3046 or www.theunionexpert.com