Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Justice Alito administratively stays Third Circuit orders in PG Publishing Co. v. NLRB, (Jan 2, 2026)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

The first of the two appeals court orders directed the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to rescind unilaterally implemented changes in health insurance coverage for Guild-represented employees.

In December, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito temporarily stayed two orders issued by the Third Circuit in a lawsuit stemming from ongoing labor disputes between the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh/CWA Local 38061 (the Guild) and involving the NLRB (case Nos. 24-2788 and 24-3057). The latter found that the Post-Gazette had engaged in unfair labor practices when bargaining with the Guild and the newspaper sought review of the Board’s order by the Third Circuit.

Section 10(e) injunction. In March 2025, a divided panel of the court issued a Section 10(e) injunction directing the newspaper to “rescind” unilaterally implemented changes in health insurance coverage for Guild-represented employees and to revert back to the coverage provided for in the prior collective bargaining agreement. The dissent by Judge Phipps, contained in a footnote, contended that there was no irreparable harm justifying the 10(e) injunction and argued that the harms addressed were not proximately caused by the employer.

Board order enforcement. Next, in November, the Third Circuit granted enforcement of the Board’s order, concluding that substantial evidence supported its finding that the newspaper bargained in bad faith when it declared impasse and unilaterally implemented terms and conditions of employment. The appeals court explained in a nonprecedential decision that the employer’s proposals as a whole would have required the union to cede to the employer the most fundamental of employment terms, such as the subcontracting of bargaining unit work and unilateral control of work hours.

The Third Circuit concluded that substantial evidence supported an ALJ’s findings that no impasse had occurred by July 27, 2020, and that the employer gave “the impression of surveillance,” in violation of Section 8(a)(1), when security guards took photographs of union members at rallies. Finally, the appeals court determined that it lacked jurisdiction under Section 10(e) to consider the employer’s challenge to the Board’s make-whole remedies because the employer failed to expound on the rationale for its objection sufficient to preserve the issue.

Emergency app. In its emergency application for a stay, the employer argues that it has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits—claiming that there is a reasonable likelihood that the High Court will grant certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the NLRB’s ability to award consequential damages and on whether the NLRA permits a court to find bad faith based solely on the substance of a party’s bargaining proposals. It also argued that it will suffer irreparable harm unless the Section 10(e) injunction is stayed.

In the U.S. Supreme Court order, Justice Alito administratively stayed the Third Circuit orders “pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court” and ordered that a response to the application should be filed on or before Monday, January 5, 2026, by 5 p.m. (EST).

The docket is No. 25A725.

News: SupremeCourtNews LaborNews Labor LitigationNewsTrends RemediesDamages UnfairLaborPractices