🗞️ A Settled Labor Case Reopened: NLRB Holds AT&T to Ongoing Obligations After Repeat Violation

A federal labor board ruling issued May 19, 2026, has reopened a matter AT&T California considered resolved, finding that the telecommunications company breached a settlement agreement it had already fully performed by repeating the same type of conduct it had once agreed to stop.

The National Labor Relations Board, in Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California, 374 NLRB No. 111, granted default judgment against AT&T after concluding that the company's delays in furnishing requested information to the Communications Workers of America, District 9, Local 9421, violated the ongoing cease-and-desist obligations of a 2022 settlement agreement. The decision, issued by Chairman James R. Murphy and Member David M. Prouty, has implications for how employers interpret the duration of their obligations under NLRB settlement agreements.

The dispute traces to a pair of union information requests filed in June 2022. The CWA, which represents a broad unit of AT&T California employees including technicians, customer service associates, and engineers, had filed grievances over a supervisor harassment allegation and an employee suspension. In connection with those grievances, the union requested records including investigative files, policy documents, and disciplinary materials. The Board found that AT&T unreasonably delayed responding to those requests over a period of weeks and months, and in one instance failed to produce certain materials at all.

The company settled those charges in November 2022, agreeing to post notices, conduct mandatory training for supervisors and managers, bargain in good faith, and refrain from violating the Act "in any like or related manner." The Regional Director closed the case in February 2023 after AT&T completed those affirmative obligations.

New charges filed in 2023 alleged that AT&T had again unreasonably delayed responding to a union information request submitted December 6, 2022, conduct that had commenced before the original case was closed. An administrative law judge found the violation, and the Board affirmed that ruling in March 2025, finding AT&T delayed completing its response to the union by six months. The General Counsel then moved for default judgment in the original settled case.

The Board's majority held that the post-settlement violation fell within the earlier agreement's prohibition on "like or related" conduct, and that AT&T's compliance with the affirmative terms of the 2022 settlement did not extinguish its ongoing obligation to refrain from similar violations. Relying on precedent from Aqua-Aston Hospitality (2017) and Jack Cooper Holdings (2017), the Board held that a settlement agreement's cease-and-desist obligations are not discharged when affirmative terms are fulfilled — they continue beyond the case's closure. The Board also rejected AT&T's argument that the General Counsel's motion was time-barred under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, holding that provision governs the timing of original unfair labor practice charges, not default judgment motions arising from subsequent conduct.

Because AT&T had already completed the corrective measures required by the original settlement, the Board declined to impose additional affirmative relief, issuing only a cease-and-desist order.

Member Scott A. Mayer concurred in the result while writing separately to call for reconsideration of the Board's underlying precedent. In his view, the existing framework allows the General Counsel to reopen settled, remedied, and closed cases based on any subsequent "like or related" violation, regardless of how much time has passed, without a clear contractual basis for doing so. He argued that the standard NLRB settlement form does not explicitly inform a charged party that signing it means waiving the right to a hearing if a similar violation occurs in the future, and that waivers of constitutional and statutory rights must be clear and unmistakable under established Supreme Court precedent. He also raised a procedural concern: the Regional Director's notice of noncompliance did not identify any action AT&T could have taken to cure the breach, despite the settlement agreement requiring a 14-day opportunity to remedy before default could be sought.

Mayer's concurrence raised a broader structural concern. Settlement agreements resolve more than 90 percent of meritorious NLRB cases, and the Supreme Court has described them as the "lifeblood" of the labor relations administrative process. Mayer warned that conditioning settlement on an indefinite obligation to never commit a similar violation — with default judgment as the consequence — could discourage parties from settling in the first place, potentially increasing litigation and slowing the resolution of labor disputes.

The majority's ruling leaves in place a legal framework under which NLRB settlement agreements carrying "like or related" cease-and-desist and default judgment provisions impose ongoing obligations that extend beyond the formal closure of a case. The precise outer bounds of that framework, including any time limits, remain unsettled.

Key Points

• The NLRB granted default judgment against AT&T California on a 2022 settlement the company had already fully performed, based on a subsequent "like or related" violation established in a separate proceeding.
• The Communications Workers of America had requested grievance-related documentation; AT&T's delays in responding across multiple requests from June 2022 through 2023 formed the basis for both the original charges and the subsequent violation.
• The Board held that a settlement's cease-and-desist obligations survive indefinitely beyond the case's closure; full compliance with affirmative terms does not extinguish the ongoing obligation to refrain from similar conduct.
• AT&T's Section 10(b) time-bar defense was rejected; that six-month limitations period governs the filing of unfair labor practice charges, not the timing of a default judgment motion.
• No affirmative remedy was imposed because AT&T had already complied with the original settlement's corrective measures; the Board issued only a cease-and-desist order.
• Member Mayer concurred reluctantly, describing the Board's precedent as "fundamentally flawed" and calling for its reconsideration, arguing the framework denies charged parties a meaningful hearing without a clear and knowing waiver.
• Settlement agreements resolve more than 90 percent of meritorious NLRB cases; Mayer warned the current doctrine risks discouraging future settlements if employers view them as carrying indefinite legal exposure for similar violations.

Primary Source Author: Chairman James R. Murphy and Member David M. Prouty (majority); Member Scott A. Mayer (concurrence)

Primary Source: Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California, 374 NLRB No. 111, Cases 20-CA-301120 and 20-CA-302339 (May 19, 2026)

Primary Source Link: 374 NLRB No. 111 (PDF)

Supplemental Sources

• NLRB Edge: Member Mayer Disapproves of Enforcement of "Like or Related" Cease-and-Desist Language (May 21, 2026)
• Aqua-Aston Hospitality, LLC, 365 NLRB 604 (2017)
• Jack Cooper Holdings Corp., 365 NLRB 1793 (2017)
• ConAgra Foods, Inc., 361 NLRB 944 (2014)
• NLRB v. Food & Commercial Workers, 484 U.S. 112 (1987)
• NLRB: Interfering with Employee Rights (Section 7 & 8(a)(1))