Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—N.D. Ill.: NLRB regional director denied Section 10(j) injunction after leasing company withdrew recognition of CBA, (Sep 23, 2025)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

The question of whether the parts and service departments constitute a single bargaining unit is currently pending before an ALJ.

An NLRB regional director was not entitled to injunctive relief under NLRA Section 10(j) against a leasing company that withdrew its recognition of a collective bargaining agreement after receiving a withdrawal petition signed by a majority of employees in two departments, a federal district court in Illinois ruled. The regional director, who delayed significantly in seeking the injunction, failed to show that irreparable harm would occur. In addition, the normal administrative process, which is well under way, is working and will constitute adequate relief (Hamada v. Laborforce, LLC, No. 25 C 541 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2025)).

Laborforce leases employees to Illinois truck dealerships. In 2019, it began providing employees to M&K Quality Truck Sales of Summit LLC. Laborforce recognized the Automobile Mechanics Local No. 701 as the bargaining representative for the employees of M&K Summit under a single CBA. The CBA covered two units of employees: the parts department and the service department. The parts department’s union steward understood the two departments to be separate units for bargaining purposes.

Petition to withdraw. In July 2023, the union steward presented Laborforce with a petition signed by a majority of his unit, asking Laborforce to withdraw its recognition of the union as the employee’s bargaining representative. Acknowledging the majority’s request, Laborforce posted a notice to all M&K Summit’s employees and informed the parts department employees that their wages, health insurance and 401(k) plans would change.

NLRB proceedings. Thereafter, the union filed its first charge against Laborforce alleging it had improperly withdrawn its recognition of the CBA. It alleged the withdrawal was improper because Laborforce had only received a majority approval from the parts department, not the entire bargaining unit. In June 2024, the union steward presented a second petition, which contained a majority of parts and service department employees’ signatures, to Laborforce, which withdrew its recognition of the CBA and informed the union. The union filed a second charge against Laborforce alleging the withdrawal violated Section 8(a)(5). The NLRB suggested that Laborforce’s improper conduct had weakened support for the union among the employees such that the withdrawal process was tainted.

Pending ALJ decision. In October 2024, the parties tried the case before an ALJ to determine whether Laborforce’s conduct had tainted the withdrawal process such that it was illegitimate, notwithstanding that a majority of the employees in both units now wished to end union representation. In January 2025, the NLRB filed this Section 10(j) motion seeking to reinstate the union as the employees’ bargaining representative. The ALJ has yet to reach a decision in the case.

Likelihood of success on the merits. Regarding the first factor in reviewing a request for a Section 10(j) injunction, the court was skeptical the regional director had met her burden of making a clear showing of likelihood of success on the merits. The court noted the first ancillary issue—the lawfulness of Laborforce’s initial withdrawal from union representation—depended on whether the parts department and service department were properly considered a single bargaining unit. Because the court does not have jurisdiction to opine on questions of representations and determinations of appropriate bargaining authority, it declined to decide that issue. That question is currently pending before the ALJ.

Causal relationship. Next, the court turned to the regional director’s argument that Laborforce’s second withdrawal of recognition of the union was invalid under Section 8(a)(5) because Laborforce’s prior conduct tainted the employees’ opinions of the union. The court explained that the Board has stated that “not every unfair labor practice will taint evidence of a union’s subsequent loss of majority support.” There must be a causal relationship between the unfair labor practice and the loss of support.

The criteria for determining whether a causal relationship has been established include: (1) the length of time between the unfair labor practice and the withdrawal of recognition; (2) the nature of the violation, including the possibility of a detrimental or lasting effect on employees; (3) the tendency to cause employee disaffection; and (4) the effect of the unlawful conduct on employees’ morale.

All four factors weighed in favor of Laborforce. Proximity between the alleged taint and the alleged unlawful withdrawal was lacking. Laborforce’s alleged threats occurred in July 2023, after being presented with a petition from a majority of the parts department requesting withdrawal of recognition of the union. The petition containing a majority of all employees supporting the withdrawal was presented in June 2024. These events occurred nearly a year apart. Thus, the first factor did not support the notion that Laborforce tainted the decertification process.

The second factor also weighed in Laborforce’s favor because the alleged misconduct seemed to benefit the employees, not harm them. Transcripts of the proceeding before the ALJ suggested the Board agent—not Laborforce—prompted the union steward’s effort to obtain a true majority of signatures in support of withdrawing recognition of the CBA. These signatures would suggest that Laborforce had the requisite good faith doubt of continued majority support for the CBA.

For similar reasons, the third and fourth factors (i.e., whether Laborforce caused worker disaffection and effect of unlawful conduct on worker morale) weighed in Laborforce’s favor. The union steward organized the decertification process, even before any of the benefits changed. This undermined a proposition that Laborforce’s expanded benefits caused workers to become disaffected with the union. Further, the regional director failed to provide sufficient evidence that the benefits persuaded workers to lose faith in the union.

Irreparable harm. Even assuming the regional director had established a likelihood of success on the merits, the court found she failed to show that irreparable injury was likely to occur in the absence of an injunction. The regional director did not file her request for an injunction until 18 months after the union had lost majority support from the parts department and six months after it had lost support from both units. This undermined the notion that time was of the essence in this case.

Normal process. In addition, the court found the normal administrative process is working and will constitute adequate relief. The union had been out of favor from a majority of employees for over a year. This suggested, the court said, that the work the union would have to do to rebuild support for the alleged unfair labor practices has plateaued and, thus, would be similar if the court issued an injunction or if it waited for the ALJ to render a decision.

Public harm. Finally, the court found the regional director failed to meet her burden regarding the public interest in the integrity of the CBA process. The court noted this case was about what the Laborforce employees want. A majority of employees from both units expressed their desire that Laborforce withdraw its recognition of the union. This could show employees are exercising their statutory right to refrain from choosing the union as their bargaining representative.

Moreover, an injunction under Section 10(j) is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted only in those situations in which effective enforcement of the NLRA is threatened by delay in the Board’s dispute resolution process. Here, that is not the case. Accordingly, the court denied the director’s motion for an injunction.

The case is No. 25 C 541.

Judge: Kendall, V.

Attorneys: Sylvia Posey, National Labor relations Board, for Angie Cowan Hamada and the NLRB. Donald Joseph Vogel (Scopelitis Garvin Light, Hanson & Feary) for Laborforce, LLC, M&K Employee Services and M&K Truck Centers.

Companies: Laborforce, LLC; M&K Employee Services; M&K Truck Centers

Cases: Labor UnfairLaborPractices Bargaining AgencyNews IllinoisNews