# NLRB v. Garten Trucking LC

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · February 18, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11263080

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 18, 2026
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11263080

## Opinion text

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 1 of 19

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1973

GARTEN TRUCKING LC,

Petitioner,

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent.

ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN PULP AND PAPER WORKERS,

Intervenor.

No. 24-2102

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Petitioner,

v.

GARTEN TRUCKING LC,

Respondent.

On Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. (10-
CA-279843; 10-CA-280804; 10-CA-281786; 10-CA-282554; 10-CA-296060; 10-RC-
279259)
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 2 of 19

Submitted: September 30, 2025 Decided: February 18, 2026

Before HARRIS, HEYTENS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Benjamin wrote the opinion in which Judge
Harris and Judge Heytens joined.

ON BRIEF: Agnis C. Chakravorty, King F. Tower, WOODS ROGERS
VANDEVENTER BLACK PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Petitioner/Cross-
Respondent. William B. Cowen, Acting General Counsel, Stephanie Cahn, Acting Deputy
General Counsel, Peter Sung Ohr, Deputy General Counsel, Ruth E. Burdick, Deputy
Associate General Counsel, Meredith Jason, Assistant General Counsel, Elizabeth A.
Heaney, Supervisory Attorney, Joel A. Heller, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD, Washington, D.C., for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 3 of 19

DEANDREA GIST BENJAMIN, Circuit Judge:

Garten Trucking LC (“Garten”) petitions the court for review of a National Labor

Relations Board (“Board”) decision and order, which found that Garten had interfered with

and discouraged labor organization in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (3) of the

National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169 (the “NLRA”). The Board

specifically took issue with Garten’s interference with its employees’ efforts to elect the

Association of Western Pulp and Paper Workers (the “Union”) as their bargaining

representative. The Board imposed a Gissel bargaining order, requiring Garten to bargain

with the Union, and a notice-reading and cease-and-desist order. NLRB v. Gissel Packing

Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969). The Board now seeks enforcement of its order. For the

foregoing reasons, we grant the Board’s application for enforcement and deny Garten’s

petition for review.

I.

A.

Garten is a small family-run trucking business in Covington, Virginia, that

transports paper for WestRock paper mill. Garten employees sought to elect the Union as

their bargaining representative. At the time, Garten employed 109 employees, meaning

the Union needed to collect 55 votes to succeed. But as union organizing began, Garten

managers began questioning their employees about union activity and making statements

about the Union during company meetings.

3
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 4 of 19

For example, George Rose, a Garten supervisor, brought Shannon Morgan, one of

his direct reports, into his office to discuss the ongoing union campaign. Rose told Morgan

that he heard rumors about the Union, that he believed he knew who started the campaign,

that he heard the exact number of union authorization cards signed, and that he thought she

might know who started the campaign. Morgan was unwilling to discuss union activity

with him.

The same day, Rose approached Jeff Baker, another of his direct reports, and asked

him about the union campaign, about which union was being considered, and about which

employees contacted the Union. Baker answered some questions but denied knowing who

contacted the Union, although he was responsible for making contact.

At a company meeting the next day, Garten co-owner Tommy Garten told

employees he heard that employees were talking with a union. He said Garten’s contract

with WestRock would expire in 14 months and it would not be renewed if employees

unionized, but that he would likely renew the contract if they voted against the Union.

At a subsequent company meeting a few weeks later, Tommy Garten again

emphasized the time remaining on WestRock’s contract. He stated Garten would shut

down if a union came in and told employees that if they voted to unionize, another company

would come in, and they would be out of a job.

Garten also disciplined two employees for engaging in union activity on the job in

violation of the company’s employee handbook policy. Garten’s policy provides that

4
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 5 of 19

“[e]mployees may not solicit . . . to other employees during their own work time, to other

employees who are working, or [in] areas where customers are present.” J.A. 2209. 1

Garten first disciplined driver Allen Pullin. During one of Pullin’s lunch breaks, he

asked two other employees if they knew about the Union and asked for their thoughts on

the Union. One coworker said they were happy with what they had, and the other did not

respond. Pullin asked no other questions. General Manager Ben Strozier issued Pullin a

written warning for soliciting employees to sign union cards during work hours in violation

of the company’s solicitation policy. Pullin said he was at lunch and thus did not violate

the policy.

Second, driver Ray Humphries was disciplined for talking with a coworker while

on a break and asking the coworker’s opinion on the Union. The coworker responded he

needed to discuss the Union with his family and Humphries stated he had union cards if

the coworker later became interested. Tommy Garten called Humphries on his personal

cellphone and said he heard Humphries was soliciting for the Union and that this was not

allowed on WestRock property. Humphries was issued a written warning by Strozier

similarly for soliciting while on duty in violation of Garten’s solicitation policy.

At one point, the Union collected 61 union authorization cards (expressing support

for the Union and intent to vote to unionize). About a month after the alleged unfair labor

1
Citations to “J.A.” refer to the joint appendix filed by the parties. The J.A. contains
the record on appeal from the Board. Page numbers refer to the “J.A. #” pagination.

5
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 6 of 19

practices, the Union held a representation election. Union representation was ultimately

rejected in a 65-30 vote against representation.

B.

The Union alleged multiple unfair labor practices by Garten in violation of

§ 158(a)(1) and (3) of the NLRA. The issues were heard before an administrative law

judge (ALJ). The ALJ found that Garten committed unfair labor practices in response to

union activity and interfered with its employees’ rights.

The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings and determined that Garten had violated

employees’ rights in four distinct ways. First, it determined Rose’s questioning of Morgan

and Baker constituted interrogation and created an impression of surveillance in violation

of § 158(a)(1). Second, the Board found that Tommy Garten’s statements at company

meetings amounted to threats violating § 158(a)(1). Third, it determined that Garten

disciplined its employees in violation of § 158(a)(3) because Garten lacked an honest belief

that its employees were engaged in misconduct. Fourth, the Board found that Garten’s

solicitation policy was overbroad, a violation of § 158(a)(3).

The Board then made separate findings to craft and impose proportional remedies.

It determined that the effects of Garten’s coercive conduct were so pervasive that

employees would be best protected by a Gissel bargaining order, requiring Garten to

bargain with the Union. As other remedies, the Board also imposed a notice-reading order

and a cease-and-desist order.

Garten petitioned this court for review, and the Board cross-applied to enforce the

order. The Union was allowed to intervene in these proceedings in support of the Board.

6
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 7 of 19

We have jurisdiction to consider Garten’s petition and the Board’s cross-application

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) and (f). First, we address the Board’s findings regarding

Garten’s unfair labor practices. Second, we consider the Gissel order and other remedies

implemented by the Board. For the following reasons, we grant the Board’s application

for enforcement.

II.

Our review is confined to determining whether, considering the record as a whole,

the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. Intertape Polymer Corp. v.

NLRB, 801 F.3d 224, 230 (4th Cir. 2015). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quoting

Medeco Sec. Locks, Inc. v. NLRB, 142 F.3d 733, 742 (4th Cir. 1998)). “It is ‘more than a

scintilla but less than a preponderance.’ ” Vance v. NLRB, 71 F.3d 486, 489 (4th Cir. 1995)

(quoting NLRB v. Peninsual Gen. Hosp. Medical Ctr., 36 F.3d 1262, 1269 (4th Cir. 1994)).

“[W]e must accept the Board’s factual findings based on credibility determinations

‘absent extraordinary circumstances. Exceptional circumstances include those instances

when a credibility determination is unreasonable, contradicts other findings of fact, or is

based on an inadequate reason or no reason at all.’ ” Intertape, 801 F.3d at 231 (citation

omitted).

We do not “displace the Board’s choice between two fairly conflicting views of the

evidence.” S.C. State Ports Auth. v. NLRB, 75 F.4th 368, 378 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal

alterations omitted) (quoting NLRB v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Fayetteville, 258 F.3d

7
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 8 of 19

305, 310 (4th Cir. 2001)). “We accord due deference to the reasonable inferences that the

Board draws from the evidence.” Grinnell Fire Prot. Sys. Co. v. NLRB, 236 F.3d 187, 195

(4th Cir. 2000) (citing NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 292 (1965)). This is “regardless of

whether we might have reached a different conclusion in the first instance.” Id. at 195

(citing Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951)).

Garten asserts that no substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling that Garten

interrogated its employees and created an impression of surveillance in doing so, made

threats at company meetings, unlawfully disciplined its employees, or maintained an

unlawful solicitation policy. We disagree.

A.

The Board first adopted the ALJ’s findings that Garten interrogated and created an

impression of surveillance among employees in violation of § 158(a)(1). We agree with

the Board’s determination and hold there is substantial evidence in the record that supports

the Board’s finding that Garten’s actions coerced its employees.

The NLRA provides that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere

with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed” in the Act, such

as the right to organize. § 158(a)(1). An employer violates § 158(a)(1) when an

employer’s conduct “reasonably tend[s] to coerce or intimidate employees.” NLRB v.

Grand Canyon Min. Co., 116 F.3d 1039, 1044 (4th Cir. 1997). The coerciveness of an

employer’s conduct is a question “for the specialized experience of the NLRB.” Id. An

employer also violates § 158(a)(1) when it questions employees about union views or

activity, if the questioning “had a reasonable tendency in the totality of the circumstances

8
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 9 of 19

to intimidate.” Standard-Coosa-Thatcher Carpet Yarn Div., Inc. v. NLRB, 691 F.2d 1133,

1137 (4th Cir. 1982) (quoting NLRB v. P.B. & S. Chemical Co., 567 F.2d 1263, 1267 (4th

Cir. 1977)).

To determine whether the questioning of employees is coercive, such that it amounts

to interrogation, “we must consider a variety of factors including the history of employer

hostility to the union, the nature of information sought, the identity of the questioner, and

the place and method of questioning.” Intertape, 801 F.3d at 231 (cleaned up). We also

consider “whether the employee was reluctant to discuss unionization.” Id.

Alternatively, to determine whether an employer created an impression of

surveillance, we consider objectively if “the employer’s conduct, under the totality of the

circumstances, was such as would tend to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in

the exercise of their rights.” Id. at 236 (cleaned up). Even one comment to one employee

is enough to establish an impression of surveillance. See Grand Canyon, 116 F.3d at 1045.

Conveying one knows the person responsible for bringing in a union is violative of

§ 158(a)(1). Dillingham Marine & Mfg. Co., 239 NLRB 904, 909 (1978), enforced, 610

F.2d 319 (5th Cir. 1980).

The Board determined Garten interrogated and created an impression of

surveillance of its employees based on Rose’s conversations with Morgan and Baker. It

found that Rose’s questioning amounted to coercive interrogation because both employees

were reluctant to discuss the union. And Baker, the Garten employee that contacted the

Union, denied knowing who made contact. The Board also found that Rose indicated that

he knew who started the campaign and his mention of the exact number of union cards

9
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 10 of 19

signed so far (at a time when the union campaign was not public) constituted an impression

of surveillance.

Garten challenges only the credibility determinations of certain witness testimony

made by the ALJ and the Board. Garten attacks Baker’s credibility as he was untruthful

regarding unrelated matters. It asserts Rose’s comments to Morgan and Baker were a result

of things he heard in the company “rumor mill,” not a byproduct of employee surveillance.

Appellant’s Br. (ECF No. 26) at 28.

These challenges present no exceptional circumstances requiring us to overturn the

Board’s findings. Garten has not offered sufficient evidence that the Board’s credibility

determination was unreasonable nor evidence that sufficiently contradicts the Board’s

findings of fact. But even without Baker’s testimony, there is substantial evidence in the

record to support the Board’s finding that these unfair labor practices occurred.

Specifically, the Board’s reasoning was grounded in Morgan’s testimony that Rose asked

questions that she was reluctant to answer, and that his discussion with her created an

impression that he was surveilling her. Accordingly, we agree with the Board that there is

substantial evidence in the record to support its finding that Garten interrogated its

employees.

B.

Second, the Board found that Tommy Garten’s statements at company meetings

amounted to threats of job loss and plant closure in violation of § 158(a)(1). We also hold

that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s findings regarding

threats.

10
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 11 of 19

Employers may discuss views on union activity generally, “so long as the

communications do not contain a threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” Gissel,

395 U.S. at 619 (cleaned up). An employer may “predict the precise effect of

Unionization” but “when coupled with the threat of plant closure, the Board is justified in

concluding . . . that an unfair labor practice occurred.” Weis Markets, Inc. v. NLRB, 265

F.3d 239, 244 (4th Cir. 2001).

The Board concluded that Tommy Garten’s statements at company meetings

constituted threats of job loss and plant closure. The Board relied on multiple witnesses

that corroborated the statements made at the meetings. The Board specifically noted that

Garten failed to offer contradictory evidence of what was said at each of those meetings.

Garten contends the ALJ and the Board flatly disregarded the testimony of Garten

management, which, in sum, included broad, categorical denials of the events alleged (such

as the interrogations or company meetings) without specific testimony contrary to the

allegations. It argues instead that comments by leadership were ultimately misconstrued,

and without a recording, it could not clear up those discrepancies.

We hold there are no exceptional circumstances requiring we overturn the Board’s

credibility determinations of witness testimony. Garten did not present evidence

contradicting the Board’s findings. Instead, Garten asks the court to accept its blanket

denials of the veracity of certain statements, and to view those denials as exceptional

circumstances warranting our disregard of the facts in the record. Several witnesses

testified about the statements made by Garten management in different meetings. Thus,

we defer to such statements as substantial evidence that supports the Board’s findings.

11
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 12 of 19

C.

Third, the Board found Garten unlawfully disciplined its employees in violation of

§ 158(a)(3). We hold there is substantial evidence in the record that supports the Board’s

findings.

It is an unfair labor practice for an employer “by discrimination in regard to hire or

tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage

membership in any labor organization.” § 158(a)(3). An employer violates § 158(a)(3)

when it discharges an employee for engaging in protected activity when, in fact, the

employee was not guilty of that misconduct. NLRB v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21

(1964). The burden rests on the employer to show “that it held an honest belief that the

discharged employee engaged in misconduct. If the employer meets its burden, the burden

shifts to the [g]eneral [c]ounsel [of the NLRB] to show that the employee did not, in fact,

engage in the asserted misconduct.” Roadway Express, Inc, 355 NLRB 197, 204 (2010),

enforced 427 F. App’x 838 (11th Cir. 2011).

First, the Board determined Garten did not have an honest belief that Pullin and

Humphries were engaged in misconduct when talking to other employees about the Union.

It determined that the relevant conversations took place during breaks, not working hours,

meaning neither employee violated the company’s solicitation policy.

Garten argues that Pullin and Humphries were guilty of misconduct and thus

disciplinary action was lawful. It asserts that Strozier’s warnings and the relevant

timecards indicate Pullin and Humphries solicited during working hours. Garten further

12
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 13 of 19

argues its policy is lawful because Garten does not enforce the policy when someone is not

working.

We agree with the Board’s finding that Garten has not met its burden. As relied on

by the Board, Garten only offered Strozier’s warnings and the relevant timecards at issue

to support its claim. But Garten did not offer employee testimony from those who

complained of the misconduct to Strozier. It offered only Strozier’s notes, which stated

the complainant-employees indicated they were on duty when each of the alleged

conversations occurred. The timecards also do not specify when Garten employees take

breaks, nor do Garten employees have an assigned lunch or break time. Considering Pullin

and Humphries testified they only spoke to fellow employees during lunch breaks and

never solicited union card signatures, the Board appropriately found Garten had not met its

burden.

D.

Fourth, the Board found Garten maintained an unlawful company solicitation policy

in violation of § 158(a)(3). We hold there is substantial evidence in the record that supports

the Board’s findings.

Employees may solicit coworkers on company property so long as they do so

outside of working hours and a company rule to the contrary is presumptively prohibited.

NLRB v. Lexington Chair Co., 361 F.2d 283 (4th Cir. 1966). The Board took issue with

Garten’s solicitation policy at large which states that “[e]mployees may not solicit . . . to

other employees during their own work time, to other employees who are working, or [in]

areas where customers are present.” J.A. 2209. It found the phrase “or [in] areas where

13
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 14 of 19

customers are present” problematic, determining the policy implied that, during

nonworking times, employees may not solicit. The Board determined the policy was

overbroad in violation of § 158(a)(3).

We agree with the Board’s determination that Garten’s employee handbook policy

is unlawfully broad. It leaves open whether employees may solicit, even outside of

working hours, when in an area a customer could be present. Further, Garten has offered

no evidence that it only enforces the policy when employees solicit during working hours.

And ultimately, this argument does not resolve the Board’s primary concern that the policy

could apply during nonworking hours in violation of § 158(a)(3).

III.

The Board imposed a Gissel order, requiring Garten to bargain with the Union, and

other remedies, such as notice-reading and cease-and-desist orders. We hold the Board

acted within its discretion in imposing these remedies.

The Board maintains broad discretion to craft orders that remedy unfair labor

practices. NLRB v. Williams Enters., Inc., 50 F.3d 1280, 1289 (4th Cir. 1995). Generally,

“[i]n fashioning its remedies . . . the Board draws on a fund of knowledge and expertise all

its own, and its choice of remedy must therefore be given special respect by reviewing

courts.” Gissel, 395 U.S. at 612 n.32. We enforce the Board’s choice of remedy “ ‘unless

it can be shown that the order is a patent attempt to achieve ends other than those which

can fairly be said to effectuate the policies of the NLRA.’ ” Fibreboard Paper Prods.

14
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 15 of 19

Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 216 (1964) (citing Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. NLRB, 319

U.S. 533, 540 (1943)).

A.

The Board may order an employer to bargain with a union in one of two

circumstances: (1) “exceptional cases marked by outrageous and pervasive unfair labor

practices,” and (2) in “less extraordinary cases marked by less pervasive practices which

nonetheless still have the tendency to undermine majority strength and impede the election

processes.” Gissel, 395 U.S. at 613–14. The Board applied the second category, which

requires (1) the union once had majority status, (2) the employer committed unfair labor

practices that caused majority status to dissipate, (3) the possibility of erasing the effects

of past practices to ensure a fair election through traditional remedies is slight, and (4)

employees’ sentiments expressed in union cards would be better protected by a bargaining

order than a new election. Id. at 614.

A Gissel order is justified “unless [there is] a very strong showing negat[ing] the

inference of lasting effects.” Standard-Coosa-Thatcher, 691 F.2d at 1144. The employer’s

violations alone do not establish a future election will be unfair, as mitigating

circumstances may exist and alter the seriousness of the conduct at issue. NLRB v. So-Lo

Foods, Inc., 985 F.2d 123, 126 n.5 (4th Cir. 1992). The Board must make specific and

detailed findings about “the likelihood of recurring misconduct, the residual impact of

unfair labor practices, considering whether that effect has been or will be dissipated by the

passage of time, and the efficacy of [ordinary] remedies” before implementing a Gissel

order. Evergreen Am. Corp. v. NLRB, 531 F.3d 321, 329–30 (4th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up);

15
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 16 of 19

J.A. 2214 n.21. But hallmark violations such as “[t]hreat of plant closure . . . standing

alone, may support a bargaining order.” So-Lo Foods, Inc., 985 F.2d at 127 (citation

omitted). Such violations “are so coercive that their presence will support the issuance of

a bargaining order unless some significant mitigating circumstance exists.” Id. (citation

omitted).

To establish factors one and two, the Board found the Union once had majority

status when 61 of 109 employees, or 56%, signed union cards. It determined that, after the

union campaign began, Garten committed several unfair labor practices, including

interrogation, surveillance, unlawful discipline, and the most flagrant, threats of job loss,

such that the majority was undermined and the ability of a fair future election was

significantly impeded. The Board then considered its previous decision against Garten

where it found an unfair labor practice occurred, 2 and taken together with the present

hallmark violation of threatening job loss, found factors three and four to be met—that it

was highly unlikely that the effects of Garten’s coercive conduct would be easily erased.

Accordingly, the Board found that employee sentiments would be best protected by a

Gissel bargaining order.

2
This court enforced the order against Garten after one of the current co-owners,
Robert “Dizzy” Garten, blamed the Union for employees not receiving raises through an
employee messaging board in violation of § 158(a)(1). Garten Trucking LC v. NLRB, 139
F.4th 269 (4th Cir. 2025) (emphasis added). The Board cites the court’s decision in its
petition for enforcement here; however, that case was not decided at the time the Board
issued its order.

16
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 17 of 19

For factors one and two, Garten challenges the Board’s interpretation of the record.

Garten raised the same argument before the Board, that some of the authorization cards

should not count because some employees wanted their cards back after initially submitting

them. But as the Board found, Garten has not offered any evidence that the employees that

requested their union cards back did so prior to the unfair labor practices.

It is clear to the court that the Union maintained majority status when 61 of 109

employees, or 56%, signed union authorization cards prior to Garten’s multiple unfair labor

practices as discussed in Part II.A-D. The threats made by Garten management at company

meetings took place both during the union authorization card collection period and leading

up to the union election. Employees were also disciplined after the collection period

closed. If anything, evidence that an employee wanted their union authorization card

returned after submission actually supports a finding that the Union’s majority status

dissipated due to Garten’s unfair labor practices. We agree with the Board’s findings on

factors one and two—that the Union had majority status and that Garten committed unfair

labor practices resulting in the Union’s majority status dissipating.

Next, Garten challenges the Board’s analysis of factors three and four. It argues

that the Board failed to independently consider employee turnover and passage of time.

Garten relies on Overnite Transportation Co. v. NLRB, 280 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2002), a

case in which the court overturned a Gissel order holding that the Board ignored mitigating

circumstances that suggested against imposing such a remedy. There, the court determined

the lasting effects of unfair labor practices had subsided as the owners settled nearly all the

17
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 18 of 19

unfair labor practices complained of, subsequent fair elections had been held, and many

executives involved in the unfair labor practices had since left. Id. at 438.

But Overnite is dissimilar to Garten’s circumstances. No settlements have been

entered, nor fair elections held. No evidence was offered to show significant employee or

management turnover. In fact, this is not Garten’s first set of unfair labor practice

violations. The court recently enforced a separate Board order against Garten for separate

unfair labor practices. See Garten Trucking LC v. NLRB, 139 F.4th 269 (4th Cir. 2025).

Further, Garten has not made a very strong showing negating the inference of lasting

effects. The Board considered the evidence before it, made specific and detailed findings,

and reasonably found that fair elections would be ensured and employee sentiments would

be best protected by a bargaining order. We agree with the Board’s findings and hold it

properly imposed a Gissel order.

B.

The Board additionally imposed both notice and cease-and-desist orders. It

specifically selected these remedies “in light of [Garten’s] extensive and serious unfair

labor practices” while weighing the “numerosity and egregiousness” of Garten’s

violations. J.A. 2215–16. The notice order requires Garten management to publicly read

a notice attached to the order, J.A. 2217–18, that reiterates employee protections under the

NLRA. The cease-and-desist order instructs that Garten must “cease and desist in any

other manner from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees” in exercising

their rights. J.A. 2216.

18
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2102 Doc: 43 Filed: 02/18/2026 Pg: 19 of 19

Garten asserts the Board improperly imposed these remedies because substantial

evidence in the record does not support the need for these remedies. We enforce the

Board’s choice of remedy “unless it can be shown that the order is a patent attempt to

achieve ends other than those which can fairly be said to effectuate the policies of the

NLRA.” Gissel, 395 U.S. at 612 n.32 (internal quotations omitted). Garten has offered no

evidence that the Board abused its discretion by imposing these remedies.

Therefore, we defer to the knowledge and expertise of the Board and hold it acted

within its discretion in imposing both the notice order and cease-and-desist order.

IV.

For the reasons above, we deny Garten’s petition for review and grant the Board’s

application for enforcement.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED;
CROSS-APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT GRANTED

19

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11263080. Public record. Not legal advice.