Subject: Update on Recent NLRB Developments for Employers – June 15, 2026 Dear Employers, I wanted to provide you with another weekly and timely summary of key National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) updates as of June 15, 2026 1.Recent Board Decisions (Early June 2026)Parking Systems, Inc., 374 NLRB No. 123 (June 9, 2026): The Board addressed successor employer obligations in a valet parking services case. It involved issues of refusal to hire predecessor union employees and related unfair labor practices. This decision reinforces scrutiny of successorship scenarios and hiring practices when contracts change hands. 2.Starbucks Corporation decisions (June 5, 2026): The Board issued rulings finding violations at stores in the Pacific Northwest (e.g., Portland and Seattle areas). These included unilateral changes to dress code enforcement without bargaining and interrogation of employees regarding strike participation. Remedies involved rescinding policies, expunging records, and posting notices. These cases highlight ongoing obligations around mandatory bargaining subjects and protected concerted activities, even in high-profile union campaigns. 3. If you need any assistance concerning NLRB litigation, an election, negotiations with your union or any other labor relations issue, please contact Sanford Rudnick JD to respond to the NLRB or union call 800-326-3046 or sandy@rudnickpro.com , www.nlrblaw.com

Dear Employers, I wanted to provide a timely summary of key National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) updates as of mid-May 2026 1. GE Appliances, A Haier Company (374 NLRB No. 110, Case 09-CA-332521) – Issued May 14, 2026 Parties: GE Appliances (a Haier Company) in Louisville, Kentucky (Respondent/Employer) vs. LaDonna S. Dawson (Charging Party, a probationary assembly-line worker). Core Allegations: The employer unlawfully issued a written warning and terminated Dawson in retaliation for her protected concerted activity. Dawson had complained about and resisted mandatory overtime policies, which she viewed as unfair or disruptive. Key Facts: Dawson was a relatively new/probationary employee. She engaged in conduct the ALJ described as disruptive during an overtime-related dispute (e.g., behavior that went beyond protected protest into insubordination or interference with operations). The employer maintained it disciplined and fired her for legitimate performance and conduct reasons, not for engaging in protected activity under Section 7 of the NLRA. Outcome: The Board (Chairman Murphy, Members Prouty and Mayer) fully affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ Kimberly R. Sorg-Graves) decision. It dismissed the complaint in its entirety, finding no violation of Sections 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(3). The employee’s actions were not sufficiently protected, and the employer had valid, non-retaliatory reasons for termination. Employer Takeaway: This reinforces that not all complaints about working conditions (like overtime) qualify as protected concerted activity, especially when coupled with disruptive behavior. Employers can still enforce conduct rules during such disputes. 2. Laborers International Union of North America, Local 872, AFL-CIO (374 NLRB No. 108, Case 28-CB-239339 and related) – Issued May 13, 2026 Parties: Laborers Local 872 (Las Vegas) vs. two dissident construction workers/charging parties (and various employers, including members of the Nevada Contractors Association). Core Allegations: The union violated the NLRA through unfair hiring hall practices, discrimination against non-favoring members or dissidents, and related retaliatory conduct. One specific incident involved the union attorney’s response (“Another loss”) to the charging parties. Key Facts: The case involved a lengthy dispute (spanning multiple hearing days) over how the union operated its hiring hall for construction jobs. Charging parties claimed preferential treatment for union insiders and retaliation against them as critics. The union defended its practices as neutral, non-discriminatory, and consistent with lawful referral procedures. The “Another loss” comment by union counsel was treated as protected expression rather than unlawful threat or coercion. Outcome: The Board (two-member panel: Chairman James R. Murphy and Member Scott A. Mayer; Member Prouty recused) affirmed the ALJ’s ruling in full. All unfair labor practice charges against the union were dismissed. The hiring hall operations were found lawful, and no violations occurred. Employer/Union Takeaway: Lawful hiring hall practices receive deference when applied neutrally. Isolated attorney statements in litigation are generally protected. 3. If you need any assistance concerning NLRB litigation, negotiations with your union or any other labor relations issue, please contact Sanford Rudnick JD to respond to the NLRB or union call 800-326-3046 or sandy@rudnickpro.com

Subject: Update: Key NLRB Developments as of May 4, 2026 – Implications for Employers  Dear Employers, I hope this email finds you well. With the NLRB now operating with a restored quorum (Republican majority under Chairman James R. Murphy) and actively addressing its backlog, here is a timely summary of the most recent Board decisions and key developments. These updates focus on representation cases, unfair labor practices, remedies, and procedural issues that can directly impact your union avoidance, election, and compliance strategies. Recent Notable Board Decisions (Late April 2026) 1. Aqua-Chem Inc. (10-CA-345660) – Issued April 30, 2026 (374 NLRB No. 102) This ULP case involved allegations likely tied to employer conduct during union activity. The Board issued a decision affirming findings against the employer. Employers should review this for insights into current standards on protected concerted activity and potential remedies. 2. Garland Symphony Orchestra Association, et al. (16-CA-264468) – Issued April 30, 2026 (374 NLRB No. 103) A case involving symphony organizations, potentially addressing bargaining obligations or union representation in a specialized industry. Highlights ongoing scrutiny of employer responses in creative or non-traditional workplaces. 3. South Sound Inpatient Physicians, PLLC and joint employer PeaceHealth (19-RC-338479) – Issued April 30, 2026 (374 NLRB No. 101) Representation case examining joint-employer status. With the NLRB having codified the narrower 2020 joint-employer standard (requiring "substantial direct and immediate control") in February 2026, this decision reinforces how the Board applies the restored rule in healthcare settings. This limits exposure for parent companies or partners compared to prior broader standards. 4. Beleaf Medical, LLC (14-RC-325871) – Issued April 23, 2026 (374 NLRB No. 100) Representation (R) case involving a medical cannabis-related employer. The Board addressed election or certification issues. Useful for employers in regulated industries facing union drives. 5. Additional Context from Prior Weeks (for Completeness): Decisions like Dold Foods LLC (April 16) upheld rerun elections due to flawed multilingual ballots, emphasizing "laboratory conditions." Default judgment cases (Village Plumbing denied; The Market by Jennifer’s granted) underscore the need for timely, detailed responses to complaints. 6. Broader Developments and Employer Implications Backlog and Efficiency: The Board continues clearing cases post-quorum restoration. New GC Crystal Carey’s Memorandum GC 26-03 promotes fair, efficient enforcement with emphasis on settlements. Cemex Framework: Ongoing judicial pushback (e.g., Sixth Circuit rejection) limits automatic bargaining orders, providing employers stronger defenses in organizing drives. Joint Employer & Policies: Narrower standards and relaxed scrutiny on handbooks/policies reduce some risks. Challenges to Agency Structure: Employers are testing removal protections for Regional Directors and other constitutional arguments. These rulings signal a more balanced approach under the current Board, with greater deference to factual disputes, procedural fairness, and narrower liability standards. However, proactive compliance remains essential—especially in elections with diverse workforces, bargaining demands, and policy drafting. If you face an NLRB matter, union campaign, or need help reviewing workplace policies/handbooks, contact me immediately for a free telephone consultation. My firm, H. Sanford Rudnick & Associates, offers 40+ years of experience in NLRB elections, negotiations, decertification’s, and union avoidance. Respectfully, H. Sanford Rudnick, J.D. Labor Consultant 800-326-3046 sandy@rudnickpro.com www.nlrblaw.com Locations: Las Vegas, NV | Washington, DC | New York, NY | Walnut Creek, CA

Subject: Update: Key NLRB Developments as of April 28, 2026 – Implications for Employers Dear Employers, I hope this email finds you well. I wanted to provide a brief update on key recent developments at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and related federal court decisions that may impact your labor relations strategies. Dear Employers, I wanted to provide a timely update on key developments at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as we monitor the agency's activities under its current composition. 1.April 23, 2026 – 374 NLRB No. 100: Beleaf Medical, LLC (14-RC-325871) – Representation Case Core Issue: Whether post-harvest cannabis workers (destemming, trimming, curing, packaging, and pre-roll production) at Beleaf Medical’s St. Louis, MO facility qualify as “agricultural laborers” exempt from NLRA coverage under Section 2(3). Board Ruling: The Board (majority) denied the employer’s request for review and affirmed the Regional Director’s determination that these workers are statutory employees eligible to unionize. Their work more closely resembles industrial manufacturing than traditional farming (e.g., mechanical trimming machines, dedicated curing rooms, precision packaging, regulatory data entry). Packaging alone took 35–50% of their time. Key Reasoning: Applied FLSA’s broader agricultural definition but found the activities were not “incident to” farming. Workers operated in separate departments with no interchange with cultivation/harvest teams. Analogized to tobacco processing precedents. Concurrence: Member Mayer agreed with the outcome but emphasized a case-by-case, totality-of-circumstances approach for emerging industries like cannabis. Implications: Significant for the cannabis industry, supporting union organizing rights for processing workers. A related Missouri bill (HB 2641) was advancing to clarify this by statute. 2. April 22, 2026 – 374 NLRB No. 99: SAAS Hotels NJ LLC d/b/a La Quinta Inn & Suites Fairfield and Rollo Hospitality LLC d/b/a Ramada by Wyndham (22-CA-315658) – ULP Case Core Issue: Alleged alter ego scheme to evade union obligations after the prior collective bargaining agreement (with Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, AFL-CIO) expired. Board Ruling: Default judgment entered against Rollo Hospitality LLC (deemed a “disguised continuance”/alter ego of SAAS). Multiple violations of Sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (5): unilateral changes to terms (sick leave, probation, room quotas, subcontracting), failure to remit dues, threats, denial of access, and retaliatory discharges of five employees. Remedies: Reinstatement + make-whole relief (including Thryv-style foreseeable harms) for the five discharged workers (Larissa Tosi, Kim Cochran, Milagros Payano, Jose Bernal, Marleny Guerra); rescind unilateral changes; bargain in good faith; post notice. No default against SAAS due to improper service. Context: Rollo was incorporated shortly before contract expiration in March 2023 at the same Fairfield, NJ location. 3. April 17, 2026 – 374 NLRB No. 98: RRI West Management, LLC d/b/a Red Roof Plus+ San Antonio (16-CA-278283) – ULP Case Core Issue: Discharge of sales representative Diandra Marie Diaz for protected concerted activity related to COVID-19 safety concerns in early 2021. Board Ruling: Affirmed the ALJ’s findings that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by discharging Diaz and directing her to stop counseling coworkers about workplace concerns and rights. Key Facts: Diaz raised COVID risks, quarantine/testing advice, and challenged a possibly ill manager. Termination decision followed internal emails about her activity; employer’s “probationary performance” rationale was pretextual (no prior warnings, no sales targets, pandemic context). Remedies: Reinstatement, full backpay with interest (no offset for unemployment benefits), compensation for foreseeable harms under Thryv standard, notice posting. Board members noted openness to revisiting Thryv but applied it here. 4. April 16, 2026 – 374 NLRB No. 97: Dold Foods LLC (14-RC-353703) – Representation CaseCore Issue: Union (UFCW Local 2) request for review of Regional Director’s decision to set aside a close December 2024 election (277–266 in favor of union, with 11 void ballots) at the Wichita, KS bacon plant and order a rerun. Board Ruling (2-1): Denied the union’s request for review. Upheld the Regional Director’s order for a new election due to serious flaws in election materials that undermined “laboratory conditions.” Key Problems: Ballots were English-only; Spanish and Swahili election notices had flawed or missing sample ballots/translations (e.g., no “yes/no” labels in Swahili). Substantial non-English-speaking workforce; lack of adequate translators. Void ballots matched the margin. Dissent: Member Prouty (favoring upholding the original election) argued objections lacked sufficient evidence of actual voter confusion. Outcome: Rerun election proceeded around April 16, 2026. 5.Please let me know if you'd like to discuss how these updates specifically apply to your business, schedule a call, or receive more detailed analysis of any particular case. I'm happy to provide tailored guidance. Best regards, Sanford Rudnick JD 800-326-3046 www.theunionexpert.com

Subject: Update: Key NLRB Developments as of April 12, 2026 – Implications for Employers Dear Employers, I hope this email finds you well. As the National Labor Relations Board continues to operate with a restored quorum and works through its backlog, here is a timely summary of recent case developments and operational updates that may affect union organizing, unfair labor practice (ULP) exposure, bargaining obligations, and workplace policies. 1. Dold Foods LLC (14-RC-353703) – Issued April 16, 2026 (374 NLRB No. 97)Type of Case: Representation (R) case – union election challenge. What Happened: A union won an initial election at this Kansas bacon-processing plant (Dold Foods LLC) in late 2024. The employer objected, arguing that the sample ballots provided to voters were seriously flawed: they contained critical translation errors in Spanish and Swahili, and no translators were available for non-English-speaking workers. The Regional Director agreed there was a “high potential for voter confusion,” which destroyed the “laboratory conditions” required for a fair election. He ordered a rerun election. The union asked the full NLRB Board to reverse that decision and certify the original results. Board’s Ruling (2-1 decision on April 16, 2026):The Board denied the union’s request for review. It upheld the Regional Director’s order for a new election (the rerun was actually held on or around April 16, 2026). The majority deferred to the Regional Director’s factual finding that the defective multilingual ballots compromised the election’s integrity. Employer Takeaway: This is a helpful reminder that employers can successfully challenge election results when there are serious problems with voter materials, especially for a diverse workforce with limited English proficiency. The Board still expects elections to be conducted under fair “laboratory conditions.” If you face an election with multilingual ballots, carefully review all materials and consider raising timely objections if translations are inaccurate or confusing. 2. Village Plumbing & Heating NY Inc. (29-CA-289082) – Issued April 15, 2026 (374 NLRB No. 96)Type of Case: Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) case involving alleged discrimination against job applicants and employees. What Happened: The case stemmed from a years-old dispute with a union (New York State Pipe Trades Association) representing four workers/job applicants. The General Counsel (GC) filed a motion for default judgment, arguing the company failed to properly answer or comply with earlier settlement-related obligations. The employer countered that the underlying facts were sharply disputed — particularly what happened during a single incident on November 27 involving the individuals’ conduct. Board’s Ruling (split 2-1 decision):The Republican majority denied the GC’s motion for default judgment.Instead of entering judgment against the employer, the Board sent the case back to the Brooklyn Regional Office for a full formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The majority found that the conflicting accounts of the events raised genuine factual disputes that required live testimony and evidence, rather than a default ruling.Member Prouty dissented (favoring the GC’s position). Employer Takeaway: This decision shows the current Board is reluctant to grant default judgments when there are real factual conflicts. It gives employers a better chance to present their side in a hearing rather than facing automatic liability. If you receive a ULP complaint, make sure any answer is timely and detailed — it can prevent a default and force a full evidentiary proceeding. 3. The Market By Jennifer’s LLC (28-CA-236704) – Issued April 14, 2026 (374 NLRB No. 95)Type of Case: Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) case. What Happened: The General Counsel sought a default judgment against the employer.The basis was that The Market By Jennifer’s LLC allegedly failed to file a proper or timely answer to the ULP complaint. Board’s Ruling: The Board granted the default judgment in favor of the General Counsel.Because the employer did not adequately respond to the complaint, the allegations were deemed admitted, and the Board imposed liability (typical remedies would include backpay, reinstatement if applicable, and posting of a notice). Employer Takeaway: This is a straightforward procedural warning: Always file a timely and complete answer to any NLRB ULP complaint. Failure to do so can result in a default judgment where the Board accepts all of the GC’s allegations as true without a hearing. This case underscores the importance of responding promptly and thoroughly to avoid automatic liability. 4.Please let me know if you'd like to discuss how these updates specifically apply to your business, schedule a call, or receive more detailed analysis of any particular case. I'm happy to provide tailored guidance. Best regards, Sanford Rudnick JD 800-326-3046 www.theunionexpert.com

Subject: Update: Key NLRB Developments as of March 30, 2026 – Implications for Employers Dear Employers, I hope this email finds you well. I wanted to provide a brief update on key recent developments at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and related federal court decisions that may impact your labor relations strategies. 1. Sixth Circuit Rejects NLRB's Cemex Bargaining Order Framework. On March 6, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit became the first federal appellate court to invalidate key aspects of the NLRB's 2023 Cemex Construction Materials Pacific decision. A. Under Cemex, the NLRB could issue bargaining orders requiring employers to recognize and bargain with a union—even after employees voted against unionization—if the Board found certain unfair labor practices undermined the election process. B. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the NLRB exceeded its authority by effectively creating a broad new rule through adjudication rather than formal rulemaking. The court declined to enforce a bargaining order in Brown-Forman Corp. v. NLRB and signaled a return toward the more established Gissel standard for remedial bargaining orders. This decision is a notable limitation on union-friendly remedies and may influence similar challenges in other circuits. 2. NLRB Clarifies Cemex Election Timing Requirements In a March 25, 2026, decision (St. John's College, 374 NLRB No. 72), the NLRB held that the two-week "prompt" filing window referenced in Cemex does not create a strict deadline that invalidates an otherwise valid election petition. A. Employers who delay filing an RM petition beyond two weeks after a union's demand for recognition may still face unfair labor practice liability, but the election petition itself can proceed. B. This ruling provides some practical flexibility for employers while Cemex remains under scrutiny. 3. Other Notable Updates A. Joint-Employer Standard: The NLRB finalized a rule in late February 2026 that largely restores the 2020 Trump-era joint-employer standard, requiring "substantial direct and immediate control" over essential terms and conditions of employment. This narrows potential joint-employer liability compared to the broader Biden-era approach. B. Recent Board Decisions: The NLRB continues to issue decisions (e.g., on March 25–27, 2026, including cases involving healthcare facilities and other sectors). The agency has also seen leadership changes, with President Trump appointing James R. Murphy as NLRB Chairman on March 27, 2026. C. General Counsel Guidance: In February 2026, GC Memorandum 26-03 directed Regional Offices to prioritize certain cases and adjust handling of workplace rule/policy charges. These developments reflect a shifting landscape at the NLRB, with greater judicial oversight of agency actions and a potential move toward more balanced enforcement. If your organization faces union organizing drives, bargaining obligations, or workplace policy reviews, these changes could affect risk assessments and compliance strategies. I recommend reviewing any pending matters in light of the Cemex developments, particularly in the Sixth Circuit or similar jurisdictions. Please let me know if you'd like to discuss how these updates specifically apply to your business, schedule a call, or receive more detailed analysis of any particular case. I'm happy to provide tailored guidance. Best regards, Sanford Rudnick JD 800-326-3046 www.theunionexpert.com

Subject: Update: Key NLRB Developments as of March 23, 2026 – Implications for Employers Dear Employers, I wanted to provide a timely update on recent developments at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that could impact union organizing, bargaining obligations, joint employer liability, and unfair labor practice enforcement. With the Board now operating under a Republican majority and new General Counsel leadership, we are seeing a clear shift toward more employer-friendly standards and priorities. March 17, 2026, Decisions 1. 374 NLRB No. 63: Blue School (Case 02-CA-294227, Region 2 - New York) This involves Blue School, a private school/educational institution in New York City (241 Water Street). The case stems from unfair labor practice charges, likely related to employee rights during union activity or related labor issues (e.g., interference, discrimination, or refusal to bargain). Earlier related filings date back to 2022 (e.g., 02-CA-292782), suggesting ongoing or repeated allegations possibly involving faculty/staff organizing, communications from school leadership about union support, or workplace policies. The Board issued its ruling on March 17, but detailed facts (e.g., specific violations like coercive statements or discharges) require reviewing the full opinion PDF. 2. 374 NLRB No. 62: Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. (Case 20-CA-328308, Region 20 - San Francisco area) Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL) is a global real estate services firm. The charge involves unfair labor practices, potentially related to employee treatment in property management, maintenance, or related roles (common in JLL cases). This could include issues like surveillance, interrogation, threats, or changes in working conditions during union efforts. Specific facts aren't highlighted in overviews, but it's a standard 8(a) violation case affirmed or modified by the Board on March 17.  March 12, 2026 Decision 3. 374 NLRB No. 60: Dart Container Corporation and Solo Cup Operating Corporation (Case 13-CA-299697, Region 13 - Chicago) Dart Container (a major manufacturer of disposable foodservice products) and its affiliate Solo Cup. This appears to be an unfair labor practice case, possibly involving manufacturing/warehouse employees (common for Dart). Allegations may include unlawful discharges, threats, or interference with protected concerted activity (e.g., complaints about wages, safety, or working conditions). The Board decided on March 12; like others, core facts come from ALJ hearings on evidence of NLRA violations. March 11, 2026 Decision 4. 374 NLRB No. 58: Portillo's Hot Dogs, LLC (Case 13-CA-354045, Region 13 - Chicago) Portillo's, a Chicago-based restaurant chain known for hot dogs and Italian beef. Likely involves restaurant workers (e.g., servers, cooks) and charges of unfair practices such as unlawful surveillance, discipline for union talk, or refusal to bargain if unionized. Issued March 11. Related Notable Development (Not a Board Decision, but Influential) 5. Brown-Forman Corporation v. NLRB (Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, March 6/9, 2026) This isn't an NLRB Board decision but a key appellate review of one. Facts: During a union organizing drive by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters at Brown-Forman's Woodford Reserve bourbon distillery in Kentucky, the company announced wage increases ($1/hour then $4/hour across-the-board) and benefit changes (e.g., holiday flexibility) amid growing union support. Management held mandatory meetings warning that unionization could limit wage discretion and gifted employees bourbon bottles shortly before the election. The union lost the election, but the NLRB (relying on its 2023 Cemex standard) set aside the results and ordered bargaining due to unfair labor practices interfering with employee free choice. The Sixth Circuit upheld findings of violations but rejected the Cemex-based bargaining order as improper "rulemaking" via adjudication, remanding under the older Gissel standard (which requires stricter proof for non-election bargaining orders). This limits Cemex in the Sixth Circuit. These March 2026 Board decisions are routine unfair labor practice resolutions (no major policy shifts noted in summaries), often affirming ALJ findings on employer conduct violating Sections 8(a)(1), (3), (5), etc. For precise facts, allegations, evidence, and holdings, download the PDFs from the NLRB's Board Decisions page ( nlrb.gov/cases-decisions/decisions/board-decisions ) — search by volume 374 or date. The site had maintenance around March 23, but decisions are now accessible. If you're interested in a specific case (e.g., one of these or another from the period), or want me to focus on ALJ decisions. 6.If your organization is facing union activity, an unfair labor practice charge, or has questions about how these cases apply to your operations, please reach out—I'd be happy to discuss tailored strategies or review specific policies Best regards, Sanford Rudnick 800-326-3036 www.theunionexpert.com

Dear Employers, I wanted to bring to your attention some key recent developments at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that could impact our labor relations, workplace policies, unfair labor practice exposure, and joint employer considerations. 1.Recent Board Decisions (Issued March 4–5, 2026) The NLRB published several decisions in Volume 374, primarily on March 4 and 5: 2.Barista Parlor Germantown, LLC (374 NLRB No. 57; Case 10-CA-320196; Issued March 5, 2026)This appears to be a standard ULP case, likely involving allegations of interference with employee Section 7 rights (protected concerted activity), possibly related to discipline, discharge, or union-related issues in a hospitality/retail setting. No major precedent shift noted. 3. Rosewood Care, LLC d/b/a Rosewood Rehabilitation and Nursing (374 NLRB No. 53; Case 03-CA-297817; Issued March 4, 2026) Healthcare/nursing home context. Common in such cases: allegations of unlawful discharge or discipline of employees for union activity, failure to bargain over changes, or interference (e.g., threats or surveillance). The Board likely affirmed or modified an ALJ's findings on violations and remedies like reinstatement/backpay. 4. Pfizer, Inc. (374 NLRB No. 55; Case 10-CA-175850; Issued March 4, 2026) This is a long-running or supplemental decision (original charge dates back years). It involves workplace policies, specifically upholding the legality of an arbitration confidentiality rule under Section 8(a)(1). The Board dismissed complaints alleging that maintaining certain confidentiality provisions in arbitration agreements violated employees' rights to discuss terms/conditions of employment or engage in concerted activity. This reinforces that narrowly tailored confidentiality rules (especially in arbitration contexts) are often lawful absent evidence of chilling protected activity. 5.Healthy Minds, Inc. and House of Hope of Bastrop, LLC, a Single Integrated Enterprise (374 NLRB No. 56; Case 15-CA-231767; Issued March 4, 2026) Single integrated enterprise finding means the Board treated multiple entities as one employer for liability purposes. Likely involves ULP allegations (e.g., refusal to bargain, unilateral changes, or discriminatory actions) across related organizations in a mental health or social services setting. 6.Tremont Chicago, LLC (374 NLRB No. 54; Case 13-CA-343007; Issued March 4, 2026) Chicago-area case, possibly hospitality or property management. Typical issues: Section 8(a)(1) interference, (a)(3) discrimination, or (a)(5) bargaining violations. 7. Titan Medical Center LLC (374 NLRB No. 51; Case 14-CA-347704; Issued March 4, 2026) Healthcare employer. Likely centered on union-related discharges, bargaining obligations, or unilateral changes to terms/conditions. These address various unfair labor practice issues (e.g., discharges, unilateral changes, bargaining obligations). Full slip opinions are available on the NLRB website. While not sweeping reversals, they reflect ongoing enforcement in core NLRA areas. 8. Shift in Case Handling Priorities (GC Memorandum 26-03, Issued February 27, 2026)New General Counsel Crystal S. Carey issued guidance directing Regional Offices to prioritize efficient resolutions, including: Encouraging early and unconditional settlements (even in "serious" cases). Focusing investigations on high-priority matters and protecting free association rights. Pulling back from aggressive pursuit of certain theories (e.g., no longer seeking to overrule Ex-Cell-O Corp. for expanded remedies in refusal-to-bargain cases). Limiting scrutiny of workplace rules/policies unless they are facially unlawful or demonstrably enforced in a way that chills rights. 9. This signals a more restrained, backlog-reducing approach compared to prior enforcement, which could benefit employers by allowing quicker resolutions and reduced resource-intensive probes. 10.Joint Employer Rule Withdrawal (Effective February 27, 2026) The NLRB formally withdrew the 2023 Biden-era joint employer rule (previously vacated by court) and reinstated the narrower 2020 standard. This requires "substantial direct and immediate control" over essential terms/conditions of employment for joint employer status—reducing potential liability in franchisor, staffing, or contractor arrangements. 11. These changes suggest a reset toward more employer-friendly processing and standards, though the Board continues routine case activity (e.g., ongoing investigations like the Henry Ford Health Genesys Hospital dispute noted March 4). I recommend we review our handbook policies, arbitration/confidentiality provisions, bargaining practices (if applicable), and any multi-entity relationships in light of this. 12. Please let me know if you'd like me to pull full decisions/memos, coordinate with counsel, or discuss next steps. I'm happy to assist. Best regards, Sanford Rudnick sandy@rudnickpro.com 800-326-3036 www.theunionexpert.com

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