🗞️ When "Another Loss" Is Just a Loss: NLRB Clears Las Vegas Union of Hiring Hall Abuses

A years-long legal dispute between two dissident construction workers and one of Las Vegas's most prominent building trades unions concluded in a complete dismissal on May 13, 2026, when the National Labor Relations Board affirmed an administrative law judge's ruling that Laborers International Union of North America, Local 872 had not violated federal labor law.

The case spanned 13 hearing days between November 2022 and July 2023 and centered on whether Local 872 operated its exclusive hiring hall in an arbitrary or discriminatory fashion. An exclusive hiring hall is the contractual mechanism by which unionized construction contractors in Nevada are required to source their labor through the union. Charging Parties Parnell Colvin and Richard Vela, both former members of the union with documented histories of opposing Local 872's leadership, alleged a series of unfair labor practices ranging from opaque dispatch rules to obstruction of their efforts to register for job referrals. The Board found none of the allegations meritorious.

At the heart of the case was Local 872's "strike" system, an automated dispatch protocol in which workers who miss or refuse job calls are penalized and moved toward the bottom of the out-of-work list. The General Counsel argued that two unwritten aspects of the system were arbitrary because they were not codified in the union's written referral rules and served no representational function. Those aspects were a practice of not double-penalizing workers who declined the same job twice, and a policy of waiving strikes for hardship circumstances.

Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone rejected both arguments. She found that the "same job" waiver was not a deviation from the written rules at all, but a reasonable human judgment applied on top of an otherwise automated dispatch system. On the hardship waiver, the judge noted that the Board does not require hiring hall rules to be in writing, and that the practice had become widely understood by hall users, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Board, in a two-member panel with Chairman James R. Murphy and Member Scott A. Mayer participating after Member Prouty recused himself, affirmed those findings without modification.

The case also raised an unusual question of attorney conduct. David Rosenfeld, Local 872's outside counsel, sent evidence-preservation letters to both charging parties during the litigation. The letters were nearly identical in scope and language to letters he had previously been found to have unlawfully sent in an earlier Board proceeding, NABET–CWA (American Broadcasting Cos., Inc.), 371 NLRB No. 15 (2021). In that case, the Board held that sweeping evidence-preservation demands directed at charging-party employees could reasonably discourage workers from using the Board's processes, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A). Judge Anzalone acknowledged the parallel but dismissed the allegation on statute-of-limitations grounds. The letters were sent more than six months after the last charge was filed, placing them outside the NLRB's jurisdictional window under Section 10(b) of the Act.

In perhaps the case's most striking episode, Rosenfeld forwarded to Colvin a letter from the Board's Office of Appeals denying one of his charges and appended two words to it: "Another loss." The General Counsel characterized the remark as a taunt designed to discourage Colvin from filing further charges. The judge found otherwise, concluding the statement was accurate, contained no threat of reprisal, and was shielded by Section 8(c) of the Act, which protects the expression of views or opinions that carry no threat of force or promise of benefit. The ruling drew on a consistent line of Board precedent holding that crude or unsportsmanlike commentary does not, standing alone, constitute unlawful restraint or coercion.

Richard Vela ran unsuccessfully against Business Manager Tommy White in 2018 and was subsequently dropped from the union's membership rolls over a dues dispute in December 2019. He had sought registration materials to work as a nonmember through the hiring hall. The union's attorney directed him to the existing hiring hall rules and informed him that, like all other applicants, he would need to appear in person at the hall to complete the required paperwork. The judge found this was neither a refusal to provide information nor an undue burden, noting that Vela's home was approximately 11 miles from the hall, a drive of 18 to 35 minutes depending on traffic.

The proceedings were substantially complicated by Colvin's own conduct. He repeatedly failed to appear as a witness on short notice, refused to comply with a document subpoena, filed pleadings in a serial noncompliant format, and, as the judge characterized it, demonstrated a deliberate preference for a parallel federal lawsuit in which he was seeking punitive damages. Judge Anzalone dismissed the complaint allegations specific to Colvin as a procedural sanction, and the Board affirmed that ruling, noting that no party had argued the sanction was improper.

Key Points

• The NLRB found Local 872's unwritten hiring hall practices, including discretionary strike waivers for hardship circumstances and "same job" determinations, were lawful supplements to an automated dispatch system rather than arbitrary deviations from written rules.
• Evidence-preservation letters sent by the union's attorney to both charging parties were nearly identical to letters previously found unlawful in the NABET–CWA case but were dismissed here on statute-of-limitations grounds under Section 10(b) of the Act.
• Attorney Rosenfeld's "Another loss" note to Colvin was deemed protected speech under Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act. Board precedent holds that accurate, intemperate statements do not, by themselves, constitute unlawful coercion.
• Vela's information request was found to have been adequately answered. The union's requirement that all applicants complete registration paperwork in person at the hall was upheld as a legitimate measure to preserve the integrity of the dispatch system.
• Colvin's claims were dismissed as a sanction for contumacious conduct, including willful failure to appear and produce subpoenaed documents, which the judge found prejudiced the respondent and diverted public resources.
• The Board panel operated with two members after Member Prouty recused himself, consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010), which permits two-member panels when a third member is disqualified.
• The duty of fair representation under the NLRA is held to a heightened standard in exclusive hiring hall contexts, where workers' livelihoods depend directly on the impartiality of union dispatch officials.

Primary Source Author: Administrative Law Judge Mara-Louise Anzalone; affirmed by Chairman James R. Murphy and Member Scott A. Mayer

Primary Source: Laborers International Union of North America, Local 872, AFL–CIO (Various Employers, including the Employer-Members of Nevada Contractors Association), 374 NLRB No. 108 (May 13, 2026)

Primary Source Link: NLRB Case 28–CB–292114

Supplemental References

• NLRB Right to Fair Representation
• NABET–CWA Evidence Preservation Letter Decision, 371 NLRB No. 15 (2021) — NLRB Weekly Summary
• Duty of Fair Representation — Wikipedia
• Guide to the Union's Duty of Fair Representation under the NLRB
• NLRB Case 28–CB–291889 (Colvin charge)
• Laborers Local 872 — Union Facts