Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—SCOTUS vacates stay, reinstating order directing Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to rescind insurance coverage changes, (Jan 8, 2026)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

On the same day, the paper announced that it will shutter permanently in May.

Yesterday, in a miscellaneous order, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the application for stay presented to the Court by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in PG Publishing Co., Inc. v. NLRB (No. 25A725) and vacated the order entered by Alito in December. On the same day, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which is the employer in the underlying suit, announced that it would be closing its doors in May.

In December, Alito temporarily stayed two orders issued by the Third Circuit in appeals 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). Below, the district court had found that the Post-Gazette had engaged in unfair labor practices when bargaining with the Guild.

ALJ decision and NLRB order. In January 2023, an administrative law judge issued a decision after the NLRB General Counsel put forward a consolidated complaint against the newspaper, alleging that the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relation Act by failing and refusing to bargaining collectively and in good faith with the union. In September 2024, a three-member panel of the Board considered that decision and concluded that the employer, by its overall conduct in negotiations for a successor collective-bargaining agreement, violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with the union. Additionally, the Board adopted the ALJ’s finding that the employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and agreed with the ALJ that during the union’s October 24 and 31, 2020 rallies, the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by engaging in surveillance of employees who were engaged in union activities (PG Publishing Co., Inc. dba Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 373 N.L.R.B. No. 93 (Sept. 20, 2024)).

Section 10(e) injunction. In March 2025, a divided panel of the Third Circuit, on appeal, 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 (CBA).

Board order enforcement. Thereafter, in November, the Third Circuit granted enforcement to the Board’s order, finding 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 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 to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay, the employer argued that it had a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits—claiming that there was a reasonable likelihood that the High Court would 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 would suffer irreparable harm unless the Section 10(e) injunction is stayed.

Alito had 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. After that and other filings, the High Court, in the miscellaneous order, stated only: “The application for stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied. The order heretofore entered by Justice Alito is vacated.”

The docket is No. 25A725.

News: SupremeCourtNews LaborNews Labor LitigationNewsTrends RemediesDamages UnfairLaborPractices