Court upholds NLRB ruling against VNS Federal Services

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has upheld a ruling from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against VNS Federal Services, LLC, for unlawfully terminating an employee. The case centers around Israel Bo Sword, who was laid off after raising concerns about a side agreement that he believed violated the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the protections afforded to employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), particularly regarding their right to engage in concerted activities.

The court's decision came on September 3, 2026, in case number 25-1233, with Circuit Judges Eric L. Clay, Julia Smith Gibbons, and Rachel S. Bloomekatz presiding. The NLRB found that VNS retaliated against Sword for his complaints, which were deemed protected under the NLRA. This ruling emphasizes the importance of safeguarding employees' rights to voice concerns about workplace agreements without fear of retaliation.

Background

The dispute involves VNS Federal Services, a company contracted to work at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Ohio, and Israel Bo Sword, a heavy equipment operator represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18. Sword worked for VNS under a collective bargaining agreement known as the General Presidents’ Project Maintenance Agreement (GPPMA). This agreement outlines the terms and conditions of employment for union members.

The conflict arose in February 2020 when Sword complained about a side agreement made between VNS and another employee, Greg Dillow, who was guaranteed a 40-hour workweek. Sword argued that this arrangement was unfair and violated the collective bargaining agreement, which did not allow for such guarantees. Following his complaints, Sword was laid off shortly after he raised these concerns, leading to allegations of retaliation against VNS.

After Sword filed a complaint with the NLRB, the Board's General Counsel issued a complaint against VNS, claiming they violated Sections 8(a)(3) and (1) of the NLRA by terminating Sword for his protected concerted activity. An administrative law judge found in favor of Sword, leading to VNS's appeal of the decision.

The Ruling

The Sixth Circuit Court ruled in favor of the NLRB, stating that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that VNS violated the NLRA by terminating Sword in retaliation for his complaints. The court noted, "Because the record provides substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that VNS violated the NLRA, we grant the Board’s petition for enforcement." The judges emphasized that an employee's honest and reasonable invocation of rights under a collective bargaining agreement constitutes protected activity, even if the employee is mistaken about the rights invoked.

In addressing VNS's arguments against the Board's remedial order, the court stated that such arguments should first be directed to the Board in compliance proceedings. The court declined to address these issues at this stage, reinforcing the idea that the NLRB is the appropriate body for determining the specifics of remedies following a violation.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for employees and employers alike. It reinforces the protections granted to employees under the NLRA, ensuring that they can raise concerns about workplace agreements without fear of retaliation. The decision serves as a reminder for employers to adhere strictly to labor laws and to avoid any actions that could be interpreted as retaliatory against employees who engage in protected concerted activities.

The ruling also sets a precedent for future cases involving employee complaints about workplace agreements. It clarifies that even if an employee's understanding of their rights under a collective bargaining agreement is incorrect, their honest belief in that understanding is sufficient to qualify as protected activity under the NLRA. This could encourage more employees to speak out about potential violations without the fear of losing their jobs.

What's Next

Following this ruling, VNS may seek to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, although the likelihood of such an appeal succeeding remains uncertain. Additionally, the NLRB will proceed with compliance proceedings to determine the specific remedies that VNS must implement as a result of this ruling.