Subject: LRI Ink: AI at the Table, a NLRB Circuit Split, UAW Drama

May 21, 2026

To visit the blog post, click on the link below the article.

What's in Ink this week:

  • The AI bargaining wave has reached healthcare, and unions already have the playbook. Contract language requiring union approval before AI tools go live is showing up in nursing contracts at major systems. A Penn State Labor School collaborative built a model contract language library that unions are using as prep material. Employers should read it the same way, before the next contract opens.

  • The Abruzzo Board's 10(j) overreach created a circuit split that the current Board is still paying for. The Sixth Circuit is holding the Board to a higher burden of proof post-McKinney, the Second Circuit went the other way, and the Ninth didn't even cite McKinney. The cleanup isn't close to finished, and if the Sixth Circuit doesn't relent on Cemex, the Board may be forced into notice-and-comment rulemaking for every policy change. That would make a slow agency nearly stop.

  • Friday Five this week: Shawn Fain has at least four internal UAW election challengers, UFCW kicked off a strike at REI, and the NLRB's Cemex cleanup is still grinding forward

The NLRB’s 10(j) Injunction Saga Is One More Headache That The Post-Abruzzo Board Doesn’t Want

by Kimberly Ricci

Current NLRB members James Murphy, Scott Mayer, and dissent-era David Prouty have their work cut out for them, and we’re not only talking about that case backlog. The current 2-1 balance is just fine for issuing run-of-the-mill decisions, but for any employer hoping that Biden-era decisions will be reversed, it’s a waiting game that’s complicated by the damage that the Abruzzo Board has done.


The third GOP vote is coming, which will open the door for certain decisions to fall when relevant cases land on the Board’s doorstep. However, cases that could limit the Board’s power to make substantive decisions are churning through appeals courts. 


Let’s just say that the shadow of the Abruzzo Board’s overreach looms large, and that’s a key reason why court battles are chipping away at the NLRB’s authority. How serious is this issue? 


The legal setbacks keep coming:


  • Constitutionality challenges: Several employers have challenged the legality of the Board’s structure over member removal protections. Those businesses included SpaceX, although Elon Musk’s aerospace company was recently declared to be outside the Board’s jurisdiction, but multiple cases involving other employer challenges are still pending. An active circuit split reveals that this issue won’t go away anytime soon.

  • Cemex consequences: The most aggressive Abruzzo Board decision had a chilling effect on employer speech and led the Sixth Circuit to place strict limits on the Board’s adjudicatory authority with the Brown-Forman ruling. In response, the Board filed a petition for an en banc rehearing while arguing that the Sixth Circuit’s flawed reasoning shouldn’t require it to use notice-and-comment rulemaking to modify a standard. 

It’s a tough spot. The Sixth Circuit appears to be guarding against another Cemex-style decision, but the effect amplifies existing headaches for the current Board, which is also dealing with another Abruzzo mess.

10(j) Injunctions: A Circuit Split In Motion

The 10(j) injunction is meant as an “in case of emergency, break glass”-level tool to halt egregious employer conduct that would cause irreparable harm. However, the Abruzzo Board committed abuse of this mechanism by using alleged, unproven ULPs against Starbucks to request that a federal court issue a nationwide injunction. These ULP charges were tied to Starbucks Workers United’s organizing drive, and the Board was effectively pressuring Starbucks to roll over.


In 2024, the Supreme Court reacted in Starbucks v. McKinney by raising the 10(j) injunction standard from mere “reasonable cause” to a higher threshold consistent with Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council’s four-factor test. Now, appeals courts are coming to different conclusions on what the Supreme Court’s ruling means in practice, although the results have been partisan and inconsistent:


  • The Sixth Circuit reversed a lower court decision that granted an injunction against a Michigan hospital, which had withdrawn recognition from a union. In doing so, the Sixth Circuit’s GOP majority wrote that McKinney requires the Board to show likely irreparable harm instead of simply making speculative arguments for an injunction.

  • The Second Circuit went the other way by reversing the denial of an injunction petition and ordering a parking management company to immediately recognize and bargain its valet attendants’ union. The court’s Democratic majority cited McKinney but gave the Supreme Court’s opinion little consideration while weighing both irreparable harm and likelihood. 

Meanwhile, an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision didn’t even cite McKinney while affirming an injunction under Winter’s four-part test.

Where The Cleanup Goes From Here

The legal battle over 10(j) injunctions cuts both ways. On one hand, it’s a good thing that McKinney and the Sixth Circuit are holding the Board to a higher burden of proof. Yet this battle also shows that the Abruzzo Board’s overreach eroded trust in this agency, and now, the current Board is paying a long-lasting price that extends to the Cemex fallout. 

The Board, through its en banc petition, is expressing genuine concern that it will be disallowed from issuing substantive decisions. If the Sixth Circuit doesn't relent, the alternative could be notice-and-comment rulemaking for every policy tweak. The current Board already moves slowly. That would make it nearly stop.

 

The AI Bargaining Wave Is Hitting Healthcare. Are You Ready?

by Kimberly Ricci

Healthcare employers are accustomed to navigating an aggressive union organizing environment, but a new challenge has arrived at the bargaining table with a familiar template.


Here’s how that goes: First, a union identifies a hot-button workplace issue. If they find success at a few bargaining tables, that demand becomes standard. Then it’s lather, rinse, and repeat for easy contract “wins” for the union, which will also use the issue to organize. We’ve seen this before in healthcare with staffing ratios, an issue that has emerged in nearly every hospital system’s contract negotiations in recent memory.


Now, unions are zeroing in on AI as their trending healthcare issue. This is happening while physicians are embracing this technology, which is increasing their workplace satisfaction. When healthcare pros are happy at work—as these doctors are, since they’re spending less time on notetaking and more time with patients--they’re less likely to seek unionization. And that’s even more reason for Big Labor to try and flip the script and position AI as a threat to workers.

AI Is The New Staffing Ratios

The staffing ratio origin story involved classic union tactics of disguising the issue as a patient care argument. The way that unions are seizing upon AI is no different. National Nurses United has argued that these tools devalue workers’ expertise and reduce nursing to "tasking.” That type of argument resonates with nurses, and unions use that feeling to their advantage.


Another important consideration: healthcare employers that deploy AI tools affecting workload, scheduling, or job classification should know that any technology that materially affects terms and conditions of employment could trigger a duty to bargain under the NLRA.


Employers cannot afford to look past this coordinated effort, and if they discount the issue, they’ll be looking at unions knocking at their door with ease. The Penn State Labor School's AI Learning Collaborative for Healthcare Unions held a May 15 conference, during which union leaders received training on how to pursue AI as an organizing topic.

Big Labor Is Already Prepared

Union-friendly outcomes have been emerging. Although the recent NYSNA nursing strike came up incredibly short of what unions promised for wage boosts, the union’s contract with the NewYork-Presbyterian hospital system included AI safeguarding language. Last summer, NYSNA also secured first-of-its-kind language requiring AI review before implementation at Northwell South Shore University Hospital. Look for this approach to be replicated by other nursing unions across the U.S.


They already have a ready-made resource. The Penn State collaborative developed a model contract language library from early AI union successes in healthcare. The language includes union approval requirements before AI tools go live and claimed job security protections in the face of this technology. Unions have already read these examples and tips, and likewise, employers should review this library the way a negotiator reads the other side's prep materials. 

Unions have done their homework on this issue. Likewise, organized employers should review that library before their next contract expires. Unorganized employers should start now.


Friday 5: A Week Of UAW Drama, A Strike, And Chatty AI

by Kimberly Ricci

UAW President Shawn Fain has four UAW election challengers, so far:

Will Shawn Fain be a one-term union president? His "big" plans for the union’s future pale in comparison to many federal watchdog reports that detail his culture of retaliation and love of throwing temper tantrums. At least four challengers hope to oust him:

  • Brian Keller, a Stellantis worker who has clearly been reading Barofsky’s reports and vows to “[e]nd retaliation and politics of fear” if elected.

  • Tricia Geiger, an international servicing representative serving Region 2B out of Ohio and Indiana. Her platform aims to "restore power, transparency, and results to the UAW membership."

  • Will Lehmen, a Mack Trucks worker who previously ran for president in 2022 and has remained an outspoken Fain critic.

  • Greg Mooney, a General Dynamics Land Systems multimedia specialist who is calling for union scrutiny of AI implementation in workplaces.

Industry watchers predict that UAW Secretary-Treasurer Margaret Mock will also throw her hat in the ring. If that happens, we could see some real theatrics, given that Barofsky revealed how Fain plotted to oust Mock after she refused to approve questionable financial expenditures.


Officially, voting begins in August, so we won’t have to wait long for drama.

Meanwhile, the UAW’s focus on non-auto workers continues:

This week, Fain’s union bragged about an election win at Michigan Science Center. This was the third organizing drive for workers at the Smithsonian-affiliated museum after prior attempts by AFSCME.


The union also passed the three-week mark in a strike by around 4,000 Harvard University graduate student workers who are seeking higher compensation. Harvard currently pays Ph.D. students $50,000 annually on top of benefits including full tuition and subsidized health insurance, which the university has clarified, “add[s] up to $425,000 over a minimum of five years.” The UAW, meanwhile, is pushing for another $5,000 annually.


Over the past week, the union has relocated its picket lines to outside of Harvard President Alan M. Garber’s private home, where the Cambridge PD ordered protesters to cease violating a local noise ordinance. As it turns out, they were causing a ruckus at 6:30 a.m.

The UFCW’s REI boycott begins this weekend:

Two retailers, no contracts, same union strategy.


Last fall, Starbucks Workers United launched a 65-store strike on Red Cup Day, which is traditionally the coffeehouse giant’s highest sales day. That strike ebbed and flowed for four months, during which the union asked customers to boycott the company to little effect. In fact, Starbucks saw its comparable store sales go up 4%, and SWU still doesn’t have a contract despite more than four years of a nationwide organizing drive.


UFCW is hoping for different results, four years after their first “win” at REI in New York City. Following another failed round of first-contract bargaining, the union announced a May 15-25 strike in conjunction with the co-op’s Anniversary Sale event. UFCW is also asking customers to boycott while demanding a six-year contract term.


We’ll be watching to see if UFCW’s strike fares any better than SWU’s most recent attempts.

A healthcare system dialed back an off-script AI chatbot:

One too-chatty AI agent found itself on ice. That news comes from Tampa’s Moffitt Cancer Center, where a generative AI agent’s conversations were not going as planned during a pilot program.


In retrospect, Moffitt’s Senior VP and Chief Informatics and Technology Officer, Beth Lindsay-Wood, shared how the facility pulled the AI model for months to retool boundaries on appropriate subjects of conversation.


“Some AI agents try to build familiarity by referencing birthdays or previous conversations,” Lindsay-Wood revealed. “We decided some of that went too far for us, so we were very prescriptive about what we did and didn’t want the agent to do.” It truly is the wild, wild west, even for hospitals.

The NLRB isn’t rolling over on a Cemex-related matter:

The Brown-Forman Corp. saga isn't over yet. That’s the TL;DR version of this lengthy section of today’s roundup. Let’s back up a moment.


In March, the Sixth Circuit declined to enforce a Cemex bargaining order in Brown-Forman Corporation v. NLRB and remanded the case for review at the NLRB. In doing so, the court found that the Board “exceeded its adjudicatory authority,” thereby confirming that the Abruzzo Board was in overreach mode.

Aside from the facts of this case, which involved a whiskey maker’s conduct during a Teamsters election, the Sixth Circuit’s decision not to enforce a Cemex order seemed like a positive move for employers, since that was the Biden Board’s most aggressive standard and placed a chilling effect on employer speech. However, this isn’t a cut-and-dried matter.


The NLRB has now fired back with a petition for an en banc rehearing in Brown-Forman while arguing that the “majority’s errors create an issue of exceptional importance by improperly impinging on the Board’s adjudicative authority, the primary procedure it uses to announce policies under the National Labor Relations Act.”


In its petition, the Board says that the Sixth Circuit wrongly interpreted three Supreme Court cases–SEC v. Chenery Corp., NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., and Bell Aerospace–as placing strict limits on adjudicatory authority. The Board then argues that these cases affirm NLRB discretion to select either adjudication or rulemaking for making policy. Further, the Board quotes the Sixth Circuit dissent on how those Supreme Court cases “echo the same principle: the Board's policymaking playing field is massive."


Ultimately, the Board is concerned that the Sixth Circuit’s ruling could force it to engage in formal notice-and-comment rulemaking every time it wants to modify a standard. Granted, this formal process is a sounder form of rulemaking that stands up to scrutiny, but it’s also a longer process, and the Board is concerned that this places significant constraints on its power.


All of this is happening after the Abruzzo Board decided to create a punitive standard, Cemex, for issuing bargaining orders, when Gissel did the job just fine. Meanwhile, Cemex itself recently got punted by the Ninth Circuit, so lots of pieces are still moving here. Stay tuned!


About Labor Relations INK

Labor Relations INK is published weekly and is edited by LRI Consulting Services, Inc. Feel free to pass this newsletter on to anyone you think might enjoy it. New subscribers can sign up by visiting here.


If you use content from this newsletter, please attribute it to LRI Consulting Services, Inc. and include our website: http://www.LRIonline.com 


Contributing editors for this issue: Greg Kittinger, Michael VanDervort, and Kimberly Ricci.


You are receiving this email because you subscribed to receive our labor relations newsletters and updates. You can manage your email preferences by clicking the link at the bottom of any of our email communications.


About LRI Consulting Services, Inc.

LRI Consulting Services, Inc. exists to help our clients thrive and become extraordinary workplaces. We improve the lives of working people by strengthening relationships with their leaders and each other. For over 40 years, LRI Consulting Services, Inc. has led the labor and employee relations industry, driven by our core values and our proven process, the LRI Way.

 

Share