1. The primary recent NLRB development you asked about (from my previous summary) centers on the SpaceX case, where the Board dropped its unfair labor practice complaint in early February 2026. Here's a clear breakdown of the key case facts, drawn from official filings, agency letters, and consistent reporting across sources: 2. Core Incident (2022) A. In June 2022, a group of SpaceX engineers circulated an internal open letter/company-wide memo. B. The letter criticized CEO Elon Musk's public behavior and statements on social media (including X/Twitter), describing him as a "frequent source of embarrassment" to the company and calling for SpaceX leadership to distance itself from his comments (e.g., those downplaying harassment allegations against him). C. The letter was framed as protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), where employees discuss workplace concerns collectively. D. Shortly after the letter circulated, SpaceX fired at least eight employees involved in drafting or distributing it. 3. NLRB Involvement (2022–2024) A. Affected former employees filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB (e.g., primary case: 19-CA-309274, filed December 20, 2022; others consolidated). B. The NLRB's regional office investigated and, in January 2024, issued a formal complaint against SpaceX. C. Allegations: The firings violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of concerted activities for mutual aid or protection (retaliatory discharges for protected speech/organizing). D. Remedies sought in the complaint included reinstatement, back pay, cessation of interference, and (in some accounts) public apologies or notices. 4. SpaceX's Challenges A. SpaceX sued the NLRB in federal court (Western District of Texas), arguing the agency's structure was unconstitutional (e.g., removal protections for Board members/ALJs violated separation of powers). B. Courts issued preliminary injunctions in parts of the litigation (e.g., Fifth Circuit involvement noted in related dockets). C. Separately, SpaceX argued it fell under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) jurisdiction (governing railroads and airlines) rather than the NLRA, as a "common carrier by air" involved in interstate/foreign commerce and government mail transport. 5. Key Turning Point (January 2026) A. On January 14, 2026, the National Mediation Board (NMB)—which oversees RLA-covered industries—issued an advisory opinion in a related proceeding. B. The NMB ruled that SpaceX qualifies under the RLA because "space transport includes air travel within the same airspace as airlines," treating it as a common carrier by air (despite arguments from fired employees that commercial spaceflight isn't equivalent to traditional airlines serving the public). C. This determination excluded SpaceX from NLRA coverage. 6. NLRB Dismissal (February 2026) A. On or around February 6–9, 2026, NLRB Regional Director Danielle Pierce (Region 19, Seattle) issued a dismissal letter to the charging parties' attorneys. B. Key quote from the letter: "On January 14, 2026, the NMB issued its decision finding that the Employer is subject to the RLA as a common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce as well as a carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government. Accordingly, the National Labor Relations Board lacks jurisdiction over the Employer and, therefore, I am dismissing your charge." C. The NLRB formally dismissed the complaint, abandoning the case entirely. D. This also signaled the agency would not pursue future enforcement actions against SpaceX under the NLRA. 7. Outcome and Implications A. Major win for SpaceX/Elon Musk: Ends the multi-year battle, shifts potential labor disputes to the RLA (which has stricter unionization rules, no easy card-check, and mandatory mediation/arbitration). 8. If you need any assistance with the NLRB concerning unfair labor practice charges or any other labor relations matter, please contact Sanford Rudnick JD at 1-800-326-3046 or by email at sandy@rudnickpro.com

January 20, 2026 1. The NLRB resumes making decisions on cases after nearly a year of not having a quorum at the NLRB. 2. The first case was Fields Fire Protection where an Employer made Unilateral Changes to Contract after Entering a Me-To Agreement with the Union. 3. Fields Fire Protection LLC 4. Case: Fields Fire Prot., LLC, 04-CA-311903 – ALJ decision adopted Jan. 8, 2026 5. Issue: Unfair labor practices involving refusal to honor collective-bargaining obligations. ALJ Findings: 5A. The employer entered into a “me too” agreement incorporating a multiemployer collective-bargaining agreement. 5B. It then ceased making required contributions to union health, welfare, pension, education funds and failed to remit union dues (i.e., failed to comply with contract terms). 5C. This conduct violated Section 8(a)(5) and (a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (failure to bargain and interference with employee rights). 6. Remedy: The order requires the employer to: 6A. Cease and desist from failing to bargain and remit contributions; 6B. Rescind unilateral changes; 6C. Make whole lost dues and benefit contributions with interest; and 6D. Post required employee notices. If no exceptions were filed, the ALJ decision became the Board’s order. 7. If you have any questions relating to the case, Fields Fire Protection, or any other labor relations issue, please contact my office at 800-326-3046. sis 24/7.

January 5, 2026 NEW ELECTION DEVELOPMENTS AT THE NLRB FOR 2026 1. If you want the new law changes in your state please contact my office for the changes in law in your state. 2. Expected Changes in 2026: Following Senate confirmations in late 2025, the NLRB now has a Republican majority (the first since 2021), along with a new General Counsel. This shift is widely expected to lead to more employer-friendly adjustments in labor policy, including union election procedures: 3.Potential reversal or modification of pro-union precedents and rules, such as: 4. Overruling or narrowing the Cemex decision (which allowed bargaining orders without elections in some unfair labor practice cases). 5. Revisiting accelerated election timelines to allow more time for employer communication and campaigns. 6. Limiting or eliminating the restored blocking charge policy and voluntary recognition bars. 7. Returning to standards that make decertification easier or restrict "micro-units." 8. The new majority is likely to prioritize case decisions over new rulemaking initially, but procedural changes could emerge through adjudications or future rules as the Board addresses its backlog. 9. The Republican-led Board may also face quorum or composition changes later in 2026 (e.g., if a Democratic member's term expires without replacement), but as of early 2026, the shift toward balancing employer rights is anticipated. 10. If you need any assistance concerning elections at the NLRB 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.

LIFE VISION CONFLICT RESOLUTION

THE RUDNICK REPORT: A WEEKLY UPDATE AT THE NLRB Welcome to This Week's Edition Dear Readers, 1. The NLRB Finally Regains a Quorum.  2. The U.S. Senate confirmed two nominees to the National Labor Relations Board, restoring its ability to decide cases after nearly a Year without enough members to act on appeals and policy decisions. 3.Scott Mayer and James Murphy were confirmed as Board members, and Crystal Carey was confirmed as General Counsel . 4.This restores the NLRB’s decision-making authority following months of paralysis after a Board member was fired earlier in 2025. 5. Implications 6.The Board can now resume issuing decisions on appeals from Regional Directors and Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). 7.A Republican-majority Board may revisit or overturn a number of recent union-friendly precedents issued during the prior Democratic majority. 8. Republican-Majority Board Expected to Shift NLRA Interpretation 9.With a restored quorum and new General Counsel: 10.The Board’s priorities are expected to change, likely favoring employer interests in areas such as: A. Captive audience meetings (employer-mandated anti-union sessions), B. Post-election representation rights, C. Monetary remedies in ULP cases. 11.These issues were part of broader Republican policy goals and could be revisited given the new majority’s composition. If your firm needs any assistance in understanding any new developments at the NLRB or any other labor issues, please call H. Sanford Rudnick JD of H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates, at 1-800-326-3046 or sandy@rudnickpro.com 24/7.

THE RUDNICK REPORT December 1, 2025 Volume 1, Issue 3 Welcome to This Week's Edition Dear Readers, Can Employees Request the Union or Force a Withdrawal of an Election Petition? 1.Employees cannot force the union to withdraw the petition, as the union controls the filing and withdrawal process. 2.However, employees can voluntarily communicate their opposition to the union and request withdrawal. This is protected under Section 7 of the NLRA, which guarantees employees' rights to support, oppose, or engage in concerted activities regarding union representation, including petitioning the union directly. 3.Voluntary Basis: Employees may approach union representatives individually or collectively (e.g., via a disaffection petition signed by multiple workers stating they no longer support the union) to urge withdrawal. This is lawful and does not violate NLRB rules, as long as it is not coerced by the employer. Employer involvement in soliciting such requests could constitute an unfair labor practice (ULP) under Section 8(a)(1), such as interfering with employees' Section 7 rights. 4.Effectiveness: The union is not obligated to comply with the request. If the union refuses and proceeds, employees' recourse is to vote "no" in the NLRB-conducted secret ballot election. A majority "no" vote defeats the union, and no representation is certified. 5.Timing During "Election Petition" Phase: The question specifies "during an election petition," which aligns with the pre-election period after filing but before the vote. Requests here are permissible, but once ballots are impounded (post-election), the focus shifts to objections or challenges, not petition withdrawal. 6.If your firm needs any assistance in understanding the election process , please call H. Sanford Rudnick JD of H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates or any other labor issue, please call 1-800-326-3046 or sandy@rudnickpro.com 24/7.

THE RUDNICK REPORT Weekly NLRB Update November 17, 2025 Volume 1, Issue 1 Welcome to This Week's Edition Dear Readers, 1. As the NLRB resumes full operations following its recent shutdown—reopening on November 13, 2025, with tolled due dates for filings and service—this edition of The Rudnick Report focuses on pivotal judicial developments shaping labor law enforcement. 2.The Board has yet to issue new decisions in October or November amid the disruption, but federal courts have been active, deepening circuit splits on remedies and employee expression. Below, we highlight four key cases from late October through early November, offering summaries, holdings, and practical implications for employers and unions alike. Stay tuned for post-reopening Board actions in coming weeks. As always, your feedback is welcome—reply to sandy@rudnickpro.com Best regards, Sanford Rudnick JD H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates www.theunionexpert.com 800-326-3046 Recent Developments 3.Sixth Circuit Joins Third and Fifth in Rejecting NLRB's Expanded Remedies: NLRB v. Starbucks Corp. (Nov. 5, 2025)In a split decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the NLRB's finding that Starbucks violated the NLRA by terminating a union-organizing barista in Ann Arbor, Michigan, but struck down the Board's award of "Thryv"-style expanded remedies. 4.The employee, fired in April 2022 after wearing union pins and participating in organizing efforts, was deemed discharged for protected activities. However, the court ruled that the NLRA's § 10(c) limits remedies to equitable relief like backpay and reinstatement, not compensatory damages for indirect harms such as childcare costs or rent penalties, citing Seventh Amendment concerns over jury trials. Implications: This aligns the Sixth Circuit with the Third and Fifth, creating a clear split with the Ninth Circuit (see below). Employers in these jurisdictions face narrower liability, but the uncertainty persists until Supreme Court intervention, potentially capping NLRB awards at status-quo restoration. 5. Ninth Circuit Upholds Expanded Remedies for Macy's Strikers: IUOE, Local 39 v. NLRB (Oct. 21, 2025) 6. Contrasting the growing opposition, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the NLRB's order requiring Macy's to compensate former strikers for foreseeable financial harms beyond traditional backpay, stemming from the retailer's refusal to rehire them post-strike. The decision emphasizes the Board's discretion to "make whole" employees under the NLRA, including indirect losses tied to unfair labor practices. Implications: This bolsters the NLRB's aggressive remedial stance in the West, heightening exposure for West Coast Employers. 7.The split—now Third, Fifth, and Sixth against Ninth—signals a likely Supreme Court showdown, urging multistate companies to revisit compliance strategies. 8. Eighth Circuit Greenlights Employer Restrictions on Employee Expression: NLRB v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Nov. 6, 2025) 9.The Eighth Circuit unanimously vacated an NLRB ruling that Home Depot unlawfully fired a Minnesota employee for refusing to remove a "Black Lives Matter" slogan from their work apron in 2021, amid post-George Floyd unrest. While the court sidestepped whether the display was protected concerted activity under Section 7, it held that the NLRB ignored "special circumstances" justifying the dress code ban, including political neutrality, employee safety, and customer relations in a tense environment. Implications: Employers gain leeway to enforce neutral policies during volatile periods, provided they document business justifications and apply rules consistently. However, in calmer times, broad prohibitions risk NLRB scrutiny—train managers on context-specific enforcement to avoid pitfalls. 10. Union Petitions Supreme Court to Curb Fifth Circuit's "Easy Injunctions" on NLRB Proceedings (Oct. 31, 2025) 11.The Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) asked the Supreme Court to review Fifth Circuit rulings allowing employers to enjoin NLRB actions based solely on alleged unconstitutionality of Board members' and ALJs' job protections, without proving actual harm. This approach, diverging from six other circuits, has stalled routine cases in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, undermining Board functionality. Implications: A grant of certiorari could standardize injunctive relief standards nationwide, reducing forum-shopping and stabilizing NLRB operations. Unions and employees may see faster resolutions, while employers in the Fifth Circuit face interim uncertainty—monitor docket updates closely. 12. Quick Stats: NLRB Filings Snapshot (Post-Reopening Data Pending; Last Available: Week Ending Oct. 31, 2025) Category Filings Change Unfair Labor Practice (U) Charges 1,248 +4.2% Representation (R) Petitions 312 -1.1% Total Active Cases 22,456 +3.8% Source: NLRB Weekly Reports 13.Looking Ahead: With the NLRB back online, expect a surge in decisions addressing queued matters, potentially revisiting remedies amid the circuit flux. Subscribe for free at sandy@rudnickpro.com 14.If your firm needs any assistance in understanding the above cases, negotiating a favorable contract or to go nonunion or any other labor relations issue, please call H. Sanford Rudnick JD of H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates or any other labor issue, please call 1-800-326-3046 or sandy@rudnickpro.com 24/7.

An Employer could Terminate an Employee for using a BLM pin on his Apron which violated the Company’s Policy for having a Neutral Dress Code. 1. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. NLRB (8th Cir., No. 24-1406, decided November 6, 2025)Key Facts: An employee at a Home Depot store near Minneapolis displayed "BLM" on his uniform apron amid ongoing racial tensions following George Floyd's murder in 2020, including store-specific incidents of discrimination and vandalism. The store enforced its neutral dress code prohibiting political messages, leading to the employee's constructive discharge after refusal to remove it. The NLRB (in a 3-1 decision from February 2024) found this violated Sections 7 and 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, ruling the display was protected concerted activity tied to workplace racial issues. 2.Holdings: The Eighth Circuit granted Home Depot's petition for review, vacated the NLRB order, and remanded. Assuming arguendo the activity was protected, the court upheld the employer's "special circumstances" defense under Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB and Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, citing risks to employee/customer safety, potential dissension, and public image in a high-tension post-Floyd environment with local unrest (e.g., looting affecting the store). The court criticized the NLRB for undervaluing these business justifications. 3.Implications: Reinforces employers' ability to enforce uniform policies restricting divisive messages in volatile contexts, even if linked to workplace concerns, while offering alternatives (e.g., DEI pins). It limits NLRB overreach in second-guessing employer safety and image decisions, potentially influencing similar cases in customer-facing roles. 4. If you need any assistance in determining what an employee can put on his uniform or any other human resource need, please contact Sanford Rudnick to respond to your health care union at 800-326-3046 or sandy@rudnickpro.com

9th - Damages to union members unlawfully locked out after a strike are upheld. International Union of Operating Engineers v. NLRB (9th Cir 10/20/2025) http://case.lawmemo.com/9/operatingengineers1.pdf 1.The Union charged Macy's with unfair labor practices under the NLRA. 2.During a dispute over a successor contract, the union went on strike for three months. 3.The union ended the strike after several months and offered to return to work unconditionally. 4.Macy's then locked out union members. 5.The Board found that Macy's had violated the NLRA. 6.The 9th circuit affirmed the Board's order, finding that the employer did not have legitimate and substantial business justifications for the lockout. 7.The court denied the union's motion for extraordinary damages, and also upheld the Board's determination that the damages awarded were appropriate. 8.The court held that the issue is appropriately heard at upcoming compliance hearings related to the order and declined addressing the employer's arguments on that issue. 9. If your firm needs any assistance in determining what is a lawful lockout of your employees during negotiations, negotiating a favorable contract or to go nonunion or any other labor relations issue, please call H. Sanford Rudnick JD of H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates or any other labor issue, please call 1-800-326-3046 or sandy@rudnickpro.com 24/7.