Sign in Subscribe
News

🗞️ When Management Steps In: The NLRB's Century Linen Ruling and Its Implications for Decertification

The NLRB ruled that Century Linen & Uniform violated federal labor law when management directly assisted an employee decertification effort, rendering the resulting petition legally tainted and the company's subsequent withdrawal of union recognition unlawful.

onthelaborfront

onthelaborfront

— 4 min read
🗞️ When Management Steps In: The NLRB's Century Linen Ruling and Its Implications for Decertification

A New York laundry company's decision to withdraw recognition from its workers' union has been ruled unlawful by federal labor regulators, who found that management played a direct role in gathering the employee signatures the company relied upon to end the bargaining relationship.

On April 7, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Century Linen & Uniform, Inc., which operates commercial laundry and linen rental facilities in Johnstown and Gloversville, N.Y., committed a series of unfair labor practices against Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 368, stretching from the summer of 2021 through the eve of the Board's own hearing in late 2022.

The case turned on events in early September 2021, when employee Donna Persse circulated a decertification petition across the company's production floor during working hours. By Sept. 9, the company had collected enough signatures to claim majority support and informed the union it was withdrawing recognition. Witnesses testified, however, that Plant Manager Laura Hathaway had accompanied Persse during at least part of the signature drive and directly solicited workers to sign. Under longstanding Board precedent, direct management involvement in a decertification effort is enough to render the resulting petition legally void, without any further showing that the misconduct actually changed employees' minds.

The Board found additional violations beyond the withdrawal itself. The company restricted and ultimately denied union representatives access to its facilities, departing from established contractual terms and past practice without offering to bargain over those changes with the union. In August 2021, weeks before the decertification drive began, the company raised wages for 16 unit employees without notifying the union or providing it an opportunity to bargain, a violation of the duty to bargain over mandatory subjects of employment. After recognition was withdrawn, managers told workers the union was "gone" and that dues would no longer be deducted from their paychecks, statements the Board found to be independently coercive given that the withdrawal itself was unlawful.

A separate finding concerned events in the days before the Board's hearing in December 2022. Plant Manager Hathaway approached subpoenaed employee Jessy Wilson at his workstation four separate times on December 7, 2022, at one point telling him that if she were in his position, she would not go to the hearing "because Dick's got lawyers," a reference to the company's chief executive. The Board found that remark constituted an unlawful implied threat of retaliation for cooperating with a federal proceeding. Hathaway's subsequent acknowledgment that Wilson did in fact have to appear was not sufficient to remedy the situation, the Board said, because she never addressed the threat itself or offered any assurance that he would face no consequences.

The company argued that a management-rights clause in the expired collective-bargaining agreement gave it broad discretion to restrict union access and adjust wages without bargaining. The Board rejected that argument, noting that the same contract contained a recognition clause expressly defining the union's access rights and that a general management-rights provision cannot override specific negotiated terms. One surveillance allegation was dismissed: the Board found that a supervisor's presence at a public gas station used as an employee bus stop, where the union agent was speaking with workers, did not constitute unlawful surveillance, since the supervisor was acting consistently with his regular work schedule.

As a remedy, the Board ordered the company to recognize and bargain with the union on request, rescind its unilateral changes at the union's direction, furnish employee information the union had previously requested, and post formal notices at its facilities informing workers of their rights under federal labor law.

Key Points

  • Tainted petition, unlawful withdrawal: A plant manager's direct role in soliciting decertification signatures during work hours rendered the petition legally invalid. Under Hearst Corp. precedent, employer assistance in a decertification drive irrebuttably taints the petition, regardless of whether it can be shown to have changed individual employees' minds.
  • Management-rights clause was no shield: The company's bid to use a broad management-rights clause to justify unilateral changes failed because the same contract explicitly addressed union access rights, leaving no room for the clause to operate.
  • Wage increases can violate the NLRA: Granting workers a pay raise without first notifying and bargaining with their union is an unfair labor practice even when employees benefit from the change.
  • Union access is a mandatory bargaining subject: Restricting or denying union representatives access to facilities while successor contract negotiations remain ongoing violates the duty to refrain from unilateral changes, not merely the duty to give notice.
  • Retaliation threats extend to legal proceedings: Discouraging an employee from honoring a federal subpoena, even through indirect suggestion, constitutes unlawful interference with rights protected under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
  • Post-withdrawal statements carry independent weight: Telling employees after an unlawful recognition withdrawal that the union is gone and dues are finished is itself a separate coercive unfair labor practice.
  • Interrogation standard is contextual: Whether supervisor questioning rises to unlawful interrogation depends on the totality of circumstances, including the seniority of the questioner, the setting, the timing relative to other violations, and the apparent purpose of the inquiry.

Primary Source Author: Chairman James R. Murphy, Member David M. Prouty, and Member Scott A. Mayer (National Labor Relations Board)

Primary Source: Century Linen & Uniform, Inc. and Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 368, 374 NLRB No. 91 (April 7, 2026)

Primary Source Link: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/03-CA-283806

Read more