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

Dear Employer Clients, As of March 1, 2026, we are providing a legal update on recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) developments, with emphasis on precedential case law that continues to shape employer obligations under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Below are key decisions and their practical implications:  1. Workplace Rules and Handbook Policies – Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023) In Stericycle, the Board adopted a more employee-protective standard for evaluating facially neutral workplace rules. Under this framework, a rule is presumptively unlawful if employees could reasonably interpret it to chill Section 7 activity. The burden then shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the rule advances legitimate and substantial business interests and is narrowly tailored. Employer Impact: Policies concerning civility, confidentiality, social media, recording, and investigations should be carefully reviewed. Overbroad language — even without evidence of discriminatory enforcement — may invite challenge. 2. Bargaining Orders and Union Recognition – Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023) Cemex significantly altered the union recognition framework. When a union presents evidence of majority support, an employer must either voluntarily recognize the union or promptly file for an election. If the employer commits any unfair labor practice that would require setting aside the election, the Board may issue a bargaining order requiring recognition without a rerun election. Employer Impact: Risk exposure during organizing campaigns has increased. Even minor ULP findings during a campaign may now result in mandatory bargaining orders. 3. Severance and Confidentiality Agreements – McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023) The Board held that offering severance agreements containing overly broad confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions may violate Section 8(a)(1), even if the employee does not sign the agreement. Employer Impact: Template severance agreements should be reviewed to ensure restrictions do not interfere with employees’ rights to discuss workplace conditions or file charges with the Board. 4. Conduct During Labor Disputes – Lion Elastomers LLC II, 372 NLRB No. 83 (2023) The Board reinstated a more protective standard for employee conduct occurring in the context of protected concerted activity. Employees engaged in such activity are afforded broader leeway, even where conduct would otherwise violate workplace rules. Employer Impact: Disciplinary decisions involving heated workplace exchanges tied to labor activity should be evaluated carefully and documented with legitimate, non-retaliatory justifications. 5. Expanded Remedies – Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022) The Board expanded available remedies to include foreseeable consequential damages resulting from unfair labor practices (e.g., credit card interest, medical expenses, or other financial harms). Employer Impact: Potential financial exposure in ULP cases has increased beyond traditional back pay and reinstatement remedies. 6. Election Procedures and Regional Authority The Board continues to defer to Regional Director determinations in representation cases and maintain expedited election procedures. Employers should be prepared for compressed timelines and heightened scrutiny of campaign conduct. 7. Practical Compliance Considerations Given these developments, we recommend: Conducting a privileged audit of handbook provisions under the Stericycle framework Reviewing organizing-response protocols in light of Cemex Updating severance templates post-McLaren Macomb Training supervisors on lawful communications (TIPS framework) Carefully assessing disciplinary actions tied to protected activity Evaluating potential financial exposure under expanded remedial standards 8. The Board’s current posture reflects a broader interpretation of employee protections under Section 7. Proactive compliance remains the most effective method of minimizing litigation risk and operational disruption. Please contact us if you would like a tailored policy review or strategic guidance regarding a pending matter by contacting Sanford Rudnick JD at 1-800-326-3046 or by email at sandy@rudnickpro.com , or the website, www.theunionexpert.com Sincerely, Sanford Rudnick JD

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

The NLRB issued an updated docketing protocol for unfair labor practice charges (from Memorandum GC 26-01, issued December 2025, with clarification on January 28, 2026). This requires charging parties to submit supporting evidence/documentation early (within ~2 weeks) before full docketing/assignment. The agency clarified this aligns with longstanding practices, aims to improve efficiency, reduce delays from overloaded agents, and does not impose new substantive burdens or change dismissal standards. 2. Here are the key facts from the most recent published NLRB Board decisions as of early February 2026 (issued February 4, 2026, in the 374 NLRB series). These are primarily summary judgment cases involving employer refusals to bargain after union certification, where the Board adopted findings without full hearings due to lack of genuine disputes. 3. Hackensack Meridian Health Carrier Clinic (374 NLRB No. 35, Case 22-CA-360422) Issuance Date: February 4, 2026. Employer: Hackensack Meridian Health Carrier Clinic (a behavioral health services provider in Belle Mead, New Jersey). Union: District 1199J, National Union of Hospital and Healthcare Employees. Key Facts: The union won a secret-ballot representation election in May 2024 among mental health technicians at the facility. The Regional Director certified the union as the exclusive bargaining representative in October 2024. The Board denied the employer's request for review of the certification in December 2024. Despite certification, the employer refused to recognize or bargain with the union. Board Holding: The Board granted summary judgment, finding the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by refusing to bargain in good faith. The decision enforces the union's certification and requires the employer to bargain upon request. 4. Winco Foods (374 NLRB No. 37, Case 27-CA-345285) Issuance Date: February 4, 2026. Employer: Winco Holdings, Inc. (operating as Winco Foods, a grocery store in Salt Lake City, Utah; also referred to as Winco Foods in some contexts). Union: International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 22. Key Facts: The union won a representation election in February 2024 for employees at the store. The Regional Director certified the union in April 2024. The Board denied the employer's request for review in June 2024. The union made repeated demands to bargain starting in February 2024. The employer refused to recognize or bargain with the union beginning in May 2024. Board Holding: The Board granted summary judgment, finding the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA by refusing to bargain in good faith with the certified union. The decision orders the employer to bargain upon request and cease refusals. 5. 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 emails 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.