Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—NLRB: Employer unlawfully refused to hire predecessor’s unionized valet attendants, (Jun 10, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling employees that they would not be hired because they were represented by a union and the employer does not work with the union or unions.

A three-member panel of the NLRB adopted an administrative law judge’s findings that a parking management company unlawfully refused to hire a predecessor’s unionized valet parking attendants in order to avoid an obligation to bargain with a union. The ALJ found that the employer continued operating the valet parking services at the hospital in essentially unchanged form. It accordingly violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by refusing to hire the predecessor’s employees because they were represented by the union and in order to avoid an obligation to bargain with the union (Parking Systems Plus, Inc., 374 N.L.R.B. No. 123 (June 9, 2026)).

Predecessor employees. The employer took over the valet parking operation at a hospital from a predecessor. The principal issues are whether the employer was a legal successor to the predecessor with an obligation to recognize and bargain with the union that represented the predecessor’s valet parking attendants and, if so, whether the employer also had an obligation to bargain with the union prior to setting initial terms and conditions of employment that differed from those established by the predecessor.

As an initial matter, the Board adopted the ALJ’s that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling employees that they would not be hired because they were represented by a union and the employer does not work with the union or unions. Moreover, the employer unlawfully offered employment to one of the predecessor’s employees conditioned on his abandoning her right to union representation. It is well settled that where “employment essentially [is] conditioned on the employees’ abandonment of their union representation,” it “is an unlawful condition which employees are not required to accept.” Because the offer of employment to the employee was invalid, the ALJ correctly found that she was entitled to the traditional remedies of backpay and instatement.

Refusal to bargain. An administrative law judge found that in the course of hiring employees to begin operations at the hospital, the employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to hire the predecessor’s employees because they were represented by the union and in order to avoid an obligation to bargain with the union. Further, the ALJ found that the employer continued operating the valet parking services at the hospital in basically unchanged form.

Additionally, the ALJ found that, in light of the unlawful refusal to hire the predecessor employees, it must be presumed that the employer’s workforce would have consisted of all or substantially all of the predecessor’s employees if it had hired applicants on a nondiscriminatory basis. Accordingly, the ALJ found that the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to recognize and bargain with the union.

Refusal to hire. The ALJ additionally found that, having unlawfully refused to hire all or substantially all of the predecessor’s employees in order to evade successorship, the employer further violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally imposing initial employment terms that differed from those of the predecessor. Therefore, the employer was required to offer instatement to the predecessor’s employees, to make them whole, and to restore the predecessor’s terms and conditions of employment until the parties negotiate to agreement or impasse.

Successorship. The Board rejected the employer’s argument that because it “did not purchase stock, assets, or a right held by” the predecessor but instead won “a service contract” in a competitive bidding process precluded a finding of successorship. “[I]t is well settled that the Board’s rule as to the binding effect upon successors of prior certifications applies to a situation where, as here, there was no privity of contract between the successor and the predecessor.”

Bargaining unit. The Board also found no merit in the employer’s argument that the single-facility bargaining unit of valet parking attendants at the hospital was no longer appropriate after it took over operations. The Board agreed with the ALJ that the employer failed to sustain its evidentiary burden of demonstrating that the historical unit was no longer appropriate. The Board further noted that the employer cannot rely on its unlawful setting of new terms and conditions of employment to support its contention that the historical bargaining unit was no longer appropriate.

The slip opinion is 374 NLRB No. 123.

Attorneys: Matthew Jackson for General Counsel. Robert F. Milman (Milman Labuda Law Group) for Parking Systems Plus, Inc. Matthew P. Rocco (Rothman Rocco Laruffa) for Local 1102, Retail Wholesale & Department Store Union, United Food and Commercial Workers.

Companies: Parking Systems Plus, Inc.; Local 1102, Retail Wholesale & Department Store Union, United Food and Commercial Workers

Cases: Labor UnfairLaborPractices Bargaining RemediesDamages UnionsMembers AgencyNews