02/27/2026: Unilateral Changes, Midterm Modifications, Default Judgment
Three published board decisions today.
Ge Appliances, a Haier Company, 374 NLRB No. 47, 09-CA-284214 (Published Board Decision)
The Board affirmed ALJ Kimberly Sorg-Graves’ conclusion that GE Appliances committed two violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA: unilaterally implementing wage increases during the term of an active collective bargaining agreement, and unreasonably delaying its response to a union information request.
On the wage issue, GE Appliances implemented pay increases for most bargaining unit classifications in October 2021 without bargaining, citing COVID-19-related staffing emergencies. The Board agreed with the ALJ that this conduct violated both the unilateral change doctrine under NLRB v. Katz and the contract modification doctrine under Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Co., because the existing 2020–2024 CBA fixed wage rates and shift differentials. The Board also affirmed the ALJ’s rejection of the company’s exigent circumstances defense — the staffing crisis had persisted for months, was foreseeable, and did not compel immediate action. Critically, the exigent circumstances exception provides no defense at all to a contract modification violation. The Board further rejected the argument that union obstruction in unrelated scheduling negotiations relieved the company of its duty to bargain, noting that wage bargaining was never initiated in the first place. On remedy, the Board declined to extend the unlawful wage increases to excluded employees, holding that the traditional remedy — rescission upon union request — controls.
On the information request, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s finding that the company’s month-long delay in responding to the union’s June 2022 request — seeking to identify who modified vacation scheduling kiosks following a grievance settlement — was unreasonable, given that management possessed the relevant information from the outset. The Board departed from the ALJ’s suggestion that the identity of the responsible person “may appear irrelevant,” concluding instead that the information would have been directly useful had the union’s suspicion of a management reversal proven correct. Member Prouty concurred but would have found the request presumptively relevant and would have ordered notice reading at employee meetings as a standard remedy in all unfair labor practice cases.
Significant Cases Cited
NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962): An employer’s unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining without notice and opportunity to bargain is a per se refusal to bargain under Section 8(a)(5).
Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Co., 202 NLRB 614 (1973): Midterm modification of unambiguous contract terms without union consent violates Section 8(d) and 8(a)(5) regardless of economic motivation.
Bottom Line Enterprises, 302 NLRB 373 (1991): Compelling economic exigencies may in narrow circumstances justify unilateral action where prompt action is required despite the absence of a bargaining impasse.
NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967): The Section 8(a)(5) duty to bargain extends beyond contract negotiations to encompass administration and enforcement of an existing agreement, including the obligation to provide relevant information.
NLRB v. Truitt Manufacturing Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956): Refusing to provide information relevant and necessary to a union’s bargaining duties constitutes a violation of the good-faith bargaining obligation under Section 8(a)(5).
New Vista Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, 374 NLRB No. 43, 22-CA-316866 (Published Board Decision)
The Board issued a default judgment against New Vista Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, a Newark, New Jersey long-term care facility, after the employer failed to comply with a settlement agreement and then failed to respond to the reissued complaint.
The case originated when 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East filed charges in April 2023 alleging Section 8(a)(5) and (1) violations — specifically, that New Vista refused to bargain and withheld requested information following the Union’s certification in August 2022. The parties entered into an informal settlement in January 2024 requiring New Vista to provide information, meet and bargain, and post notices. When the employer failed to demonstrate compliance, the Regional Director issued a reissued complaint in March 2025. New Vista did not file an answer, and the Acting General Counsel moved for default judgment.
Because this was a default judgment proceeding — not a contested ALJ decision — there was no ALJ ruling on the merits to compare against. The Board accepted all complaint allegations as true based on the noncompliance provisions of the settlement agreement, citing U-Bee, Ltd. The Board found New Vista violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to bargain since October 2022 and by withholding life insurance policy information requested in February 2023. As a remedy, the Board ordered bargaining on request, production of the outstanding information, and extended the certification year — meaning the one-year certification period will not begin to run until New Vista actually commences good-faith bargaining, per Mar-Jac Poultry Co.
Significant Cases Cited
U-Bee, Ltd., 315 NLRB 667 (1994): Establishes that when a respondent fails to comply with a settlement agreement’s noncompliance provisions, the Board may deem all complaint allegations admitted and enter a default judgment.
Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785 (1962): Established the Board’s authority to extend the certification year so that it begins running only from the date the employer commences good-faith bargaining.
Burnett Construction Co., 149 NLRB 1419 (1964): Applied the certification year extension remedy where an employer’s refusal to bargain prevented the union from exercising its representational rights during the certification year.
Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226 (1962): Further affirmed the certification year extension principle to ensure employees receive the benefit of their selected bargaining representative for the full statutory period.
Coreslab Structures (Tulsa) Inc., 374 NLRB No. 49, 14-CA-248354 (Published Board Decision)
The Board issued this supplemental decision following a remand from the Tenth Circuit, addressing only the scope of the remedy rather than the underlying liability findings. The original violations — discriminatory exclusion of union members from pension contributions and a profit-sharing plan in violation of Sections 8(a)(5), (3), and (1) of the NLRA — had already been affirmed by both the Board and the court.
The Tenth Circuit’s central objection was to the Board’s original remedial order, which it found overbroad in two respects. First, the court held that ordering full back-pension contributions and profit-sharing payments without offset for compensation already received was not sufficiently tailored to the actual harm suffered. Second, the court found that ordering the Respondent to retain the profit-sharing program unless the Union requested rescission improperly intruded on the collective bargaining process — the Board cannot dictate contract terms, and whether to continue or eliminate the profit-sharing program is a matter for the parties to negotiate.
In this supplemental decision, the Board accepted the remand and made no independent legal determinations of its own. The Board deferred entirely to the Tenth Circuit’s opinion as the law of the case and remanded to Region 14 to recalculate the remedy with offsets, ensuring that make-whole relief is limited to actual, non-speculative harms flowing from the unlawful conduct since January 1, 2011.
Significant Cases Cited
Coreslab Structures (Tulsa), Inc. v. NLRB, 100 F.4th 1123 (10th Cir. 2024): The Tenth Circuit decision that affirmed the underlying NLRA violations but found the Board’s remedial orders overbroad and remanded for recalculation with offset.
Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883 (1984): Supreme Court decision establishing that Board remedies must be sufficiently tailored to expunge only the actual, and not merely speculative, consequences of an unfair labor practice.
Scepter Ingot Castings, Inc., 341 NLRB 997 (2004): Board decision holding that it lacks jurisdiction to modify a court-enforced order.