That “settled” NLRB case? It can come back to bite you.

That “settled” NLRB case? It can come back to bite you.

The Board just reminded employers that signing a settlement agreement doesn’t end your obligations — it extends them.

In Pacific Bell Telephone Co. d/b/a AT&T California (374 NLRB No. 111, May 19, 2026), the NLRB granted default judgment against the company over unfair labor practices it thought were behind it.

Here’s how it unfolded. In 2022, the Communications Workers of America accused Pacific Bell of failing to bargain in good faith and dragging its feet on information requests. The company settled, posted the required notice, trained its managers, and the Region closed the case in early 2023 after confirming full compliance.

Case closed, right? Not quite.

The Union filed new charges over the same kind of conduct — again delaying relevant information requests. An ALJ and then the Board found those later delays unlawful. Because the settlement agreement barred violating the Act “in any like or related manner,” the Board ruled that this new conduct breached the original settlement — reviving the old allegations and deeming them all admitted.

The company’s defenses all failed: that the case was already closed, that the claims were time-barred under Section 10(b), and that it had cured the breach. The Board granted default judgment on every count.

The takeaway for employers: A settlement’s “like or related manner” clause is an ongoing promise, not a one-time box to check. Repeat conduct — even in a separate, later case — can resurrect a settled matter and strip you of your defenses.

I expect this to be appealed to a Circuit Court and look forward to learning how the court ruled.