07/15/2026: Mother and Daughter Concertedly Protested Wages
Threatening to go to the Labor Board is protected activity.
Northville Manor LLC, JD-45-26, 07-CA-326048 (ALJ Decision)
An administrative law judge found that a Michigan nursing home unlawfully fired a mother and daughter after they raised concerns about their pay and hinted they might go to the NLRB.
Dejahnae Unique Hatcher worked as a dietary aide and later a cook at Northville Manor, a nursing home her mother, Monique Craig, also worked at as a cook. When Hatcher was promoted without a corresponding raise, she and Craig repeatedly raised the issue with their supervisor, the director of nursing, and eventually with the facility's corporate office, also complaining that they were not being paid for all their hours. During one of these calls, an employee reached the corporate dietitian and said she planned to go to the "Labor Board" if her pay issue wasn't resolved.
The day after Craig raised the pay issues with the corporate office, the director of nursing called her and said that she and her daughter were "about to lose" their jobs because they had gone to corporate, and reiterated the threat when Craig confirmed she planned to go to the Labor Board. Both women were separated from the company shortly afterward. The company argued they had voluntarily resigned after being confronted about violating its nepotism policy, which restricts relatives from working the same shift or department, but produced no witness or contemporaneous documentation to support that claim, only later-created payroll records and unemployment paperwork that had "fired" crossed out and replaced with "resigned." A recorded conversation between the company's former counsel and the former director of nursing was also admitted into evidence, in which she referred repeatedly to the pay complaints as the reason for the terminations and only mentioned nepotism after being prompted, without ever claiming the women were given a resign-or-be-fired choice.
The judge credited the employees' testimony that they were fired, not that they quit, and found that both women engaged in protected concerted activity by discussing their pay and hours with each other and raising it collectively with management, activity the Board has said is "inherently concerted" given how central wages are to employment. She also found their mention of going to the Labor Board protected activity under the Act's provision barring retaliation for NLRB-related activity, regardless of whether they actually understood what the agency did. Because the company's stated justification for the firings was not supported by the evidence, the judge concluded it failed to show it would have fired the women regardless of their protected activity.
The judge ordered the nursing home to reinstate Hatcher, ensure Craig (who was later rehired) keeps her full seniority, and make both women whole for lost pay and other financial harms, including tax consequences of a lump-sum award, while also requiring it to remove records of the terminations from their files and post a notice to employees about their rights.
Significant Cases Cited
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Establishes the burden-shifting framework for cases where an employer is accused of firing a worker for protected activity but claims a legitimate business reason.
NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, 465 U.S. 822 (1984): Sets out the standard for determining when an employee's actions constitute protected concerted activity.
Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556 (1978): Recognizes that wages are among the topics of greatest concern to employees and central to protected concerted activity.
NLRB v. Scrivener, 405 U.S. 117 (1972): Holds that protection against retaliation for NLRB-related activity is broadly interpreted beyond formally filing a charge or testifying.
Cordua Restaurants, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 43 (2019): Holds that discussing wages with coworkers is protected concerted activity, including related follow-up requests that logically grow out of those discussions.
Starbucks Corporation, 22-RD-369759 (Unpublished Board Decision)
The Board denied a petitioner's request for review of a regional director's decision to block a decertification petition under a pending unfair labor practice charge.
In a footnote, the employer had asked Member Prouty to recuse himself, citing his past and present ties to the Service Employees International Union and its affiliates, including Workers United. Member Prouty consulted the NLRB's Designated Agency Ethics Official and determined there was no basis for recusal.
The Board majority found that the regional director had properly applied Section 103.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, which governs the blocking-charge policy allowing a pending unfair labor practice charge to pause processing of a related representation petition. Members Murphy and Mayer stated they were applying existing law for institutional reasons and took no position on whether the blocking-charge policy itself was correctly decided.
Member Mayer wrote separately to note that under the Board's current procedures, regional directors are expected to continually reassess whether a blocking charge should keep a petition in abeyance, citing the Casehandling Manual and Section 103.20(e), which allows a regional director to resume processing a petition if special circumstances arise or employee free choice becomes possible despite a pending unfair labor practice case. He suggested that the Board should consider whether its blocking-charge policy adequately accounts for the passage of time since a petition was filed, and urged that unfair labor practice cases blocking an election be given priority.
JSK Parsippany, LLC, D/B/a Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott, and Fairfield Parsippany, LLC, as Suc, 22-CA-305280 (Unpublished Board Decision)
The Board denied a motion filed by the General Counsel seeking clarification of its earlier decision in the case, finding that further clarification was not warranted.
The General Counsel had argued that the Board's original decision did not address the administrative law judge's finding that Fairfield Parsippany, LLC, the successor entity, is liable for remedying the unfair labor practices committed by JSK Parsippany, LLC. The Board rejected this argument, noting that its prior decision had already affirmed the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions in full. The General Counsel's motion also raised a related argument, not previously presented as an exception to the Board, that the recommended order and notices should have been modified to specifically incorporate the successor liability finding. The Board found this unnecessary as well, explaining that its existing order already requires JSK and its successors to remedy JSK's unfair labor practices, so the remedies in place were already appropriate.
Significant Cases Cited
Smoke House Restaurant, 347 NLRB 192 (2006): Cited for the principle that a Board order requiring a respondent and its successors to remedy unfair labor practices is sufficient without additional express modification addressing successor liability.
Start Small. Think Big., Inc., 02-RC-317333 (Unpublished Board Decision)
The Board denied the employer's request for review of a regional director's decision directing an election, finding no substantial issues warranted reconsideration.
The dispute centered on whether Ian McDermott, a Senior Finance Program Manager, qualified as a statutory supervisor under Section 2(11) of the NLRA based on his role in hiring decisions. The majority, Chairman James Murphy and Member David Prouty, explained that even assuming McDermott had authority to effectively recommend hiring, the employer failed to show that he exercised independent judgment in making those recommendations. They pointed to the thin record on McDermott's approach to hiring, noting only a single statement that he recommended a candidate because he believed she would stay in the job long term.
Member Scott Mayer dissented, arguing review should have been granted. He pointed to testimony from Senior Director Ranjit Unnithan that McDermott was deeply involved throughout the hiring of Program Coordinator Arlene Cornejal, from screening resumes through interviewing and recommending her hire, and that Unnithan would not have proceeded without McDermott's approval. Mayer argued this made McDermott's role comparable to, or stronger than, the supervisor's role in Sheraton Universal Hotel, where a negative recommendation would have been fatal to an applicant. He also faulted the regional director for failing to address independent judgment at all, noting McDermott's stated rationale for recommending Cornejal reflected a subjective judgment call untethered to any employer policy or checklist.
Mayer further cited secondary indicia supporting supervisory status: McDermott alone authored Cornejal's performance review without Unnithan's involvement, responded to her requests for professional development and more frequent one-on-one meetings, and was himself evaluated on his performance as a manager of Cornejal in his own review.
Significant Cases Cited
Sheraton Universal Hotel, 350 NLRB 1114 (2007): Found a putative supervisor had authority to effectively recommend hiring where a higher-level manager testified that a negative recommendation from the supervisor would have been fatal to an applicant's chances.
HS Lordships, 274 NLRB 1167 (1985): Found supervisory status based on a manager's unequivocal testimony that he would not hire an applicant over the putative supervisor's objection.
Fred Meyer Alaska, Inc., 334 NLRB 646 (2001): Addressed what evidence is needed to show a putative supervisor exercises independent judgment in recommending hires based on their own assessment of needed skills and candidate qualifications.