Not a government sitenlrb.fyi is an independent project. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or operated by the National Labor Relations Board or any government agency. The Board's own site is at nlrb.gov.

Aramark Corporation

66 cases in this site's copy of the record · 0 of those 66 are marked open by the Board · Region 01, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32 · BOSTON, MA; Bellflower, CA; Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; FARMINGTON HILLS, MI; Flint, MI and more

Each case links to the Board's own docket page. This site holds what the Board listed, not the documents.

What kinds of case

Type	What it is	Here
CA	Charge against an employer	57
RC	Petition for an election	5
RD	Petition to decertify	2
RM	Petition filed by an employer	2

The cases

Petition for an election
RC
Filed 23 January 2026Case 31-RC-379670ClosedLos Angeles, CARegion 31Workers in the unit 3
Included: All full time, regular time, temp and per diem Chief Building Engineers, Lead Building Engineers and building engineers. Excluded: All other employees, professional employees, managerial employees, security guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 24 April 2023Case 18-CA-316817ClosedMankato, MNRegion 18Workers in the unit 75
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 24 April 2023Case 18-CA-316815ClosedHibbing, MNRegion 18Workers in the unit 75
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 24 April 2023Case 18-CA-316812ClosedSaint Cloud, MNRegion 18Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 24 April 2023Case 18-CA-316796ClosedMinneapolis, MNRegion 18Workers in the unit 25
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 10 April 2023Case 05-CA-316037ClosedWashington, DCRegion 05Workers in the unit 300
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 13 January 2021Case 06-CA-271430ClosedPittsburgh, PARegion 06Workers in the unit 20
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 June 2019Case 07-CA-242987ClosedWarren, MIRegion 07Workers in the unit 300
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 20 February 2019Case 04-CA-236356ClosedPhiladelphia, PARegion 04Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 14 August 2018Case 08-CA-225585ClosedParma, OHRegion 08Workers in the unit 40
ARAMARK CORPORATION
CA
Filed 14 August 2018Case 01-CA-225575ClosedBOSTON, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 26
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 13 July 2017Case 07-CA-202691ClosedFlint, MIRegion 07Workers in the unit 50
Petition for an election
RC
Filed 27 October 2016Case 32-RC-187060ClosedSan Jose, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 130
Included: Barista, Cashier, Catering Service Worker, Cook, Food Prep Worker, Food Service Worker, Food Service Lead Worker, General Utility Lead Worker, General Utility Worker, Grill Cook, Host/Hostess, Lead Cashier, Lead Cook, Lead Waiter/Waitress, Supervisor, Waiter/Waitress. Excluded: Managers, Clerical/Admin, Guards.
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 13 October 2016Case 07-CA-186226ClosedWarren, MIRegion 07Workers in the unit 300
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 July 2016Case 01-CA-181016ClosedNew London, CTRegion 01Workers in the unit 25
ARAMARK CORPORATION
RC
Filed 3 August 2015Case 18-RC-157172ClosedMaplewood, MNRegion 18Workers in the unit 5
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 18 April 2014Case 28-CA-126885ClosedLas Vegas, NVRegion 28Workers in the unit 500
ARAMARK CORPORATION
CA
Filed 16 July 2013Case 02-CA-109233ClosedNew York, NYRegion 02Workers in the unit 125
ARAMARK CORPORATION
CA
Filed 12 June 2012Case 25-CA-082899ClosedFARMINGTON HILLS, MIRegion 25Workers in the unit 25
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 June 2012Case 01-CA-082571ClosedBoston, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 25
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 10 December 2010Case 05-CA-036322ClosedSilver Spring, MDRegion 05Workers in the unit 20
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 2 June 2010Case 01-CA-046169ClosedBoston, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 25
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 May 2010Case 15-CA-019551ClosedNew Orleans, LARegion 15Workers in the unit 50
Petition for an election
RC
Filed 7 April 2010Case 32-RC-005757ClosedSan Ramon, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 19
Included: All regular full-time and part-time food and beverage and cash clerk workers at the location described in #3 above. Excluding: Managers and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Petition for an election
RC
Filed 26 January 2010Case 02-RC-023448Closedharrison, NYRegion 02Workers in the unit 8
Included: All full time and regular part time cleaning and janitorial employees working at Mercy College campus in the Bronx, NY. Excluded: All other as defined in the Act.
ARAMARK Corporation
RM
Filed 7 January 2010Case 02-RM-002122Closednew york, NYRegion 02Workers in the unit 6
see attached on petition
ARAMARK Corporation
RM
Filed 7 January 2010Case 02-RM-002121Closednew york, NYRegion 02Workers in the unit 6
see attached on petition
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 December 2009Case 21-CA-039172ClosedBellflower, CARegion 21Workers in the unit 30
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 20 August 2009Case 02-CA-039444ClosedPhiladelphia, PARegion 02Workers in the unit 20
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 2 April 2009Case 02-CA-039241ClosedPhiladelphia, PARegion 02Workers in the unit 1,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 17 June 2008Case 16-CA-026271ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 9 May 2008Case 16-CA-026208ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 9 May 2008Case 16-CA-026207ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 9 May 2008Case 16-CA-026206ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Petition to decertify
RD
Filed 6 May 2008Case 05-RD-001443ClosedRichmond, VARegion 05Workers in the unit 28
Included: All employees employed by the Employer at the Greater Richmond Convention Center facility, Richmond, Virginia; Excluded: Office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 May 2008Case 16-CA-026195ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 May 2008Case 16-CA-026194ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 May 2008Case 16-CA-026193ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 May 2008Case 16-CA-026192ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 May 2008Case 16-CA-026191ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 3 April 2008Case 16-CA-026135ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 20 March 2008Case 13-CA-044611ClosedLake Zurich, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 20 March 2008Case 13-CA-044610ClosedLake Zurich, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 14 February 2008Case 16-CA-026042ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 14 February 2008Case 16-CA-026041ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 14 February 2008Case 16-CA-026040ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 14 February 2008Case 16-CA-026039ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 14 February 2008Case 16-CA-026038ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 1 February 2008Case 13-CA-044533ClosedChicago, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 18 December 2007Case 13-CA-044457ClosedChicago, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 December 2007Case 16-CA-025969ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 December 2007Case 16-CA-025968ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 December 2007Case 16-CA-025967ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 December 2007Case 16-CA-025966ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 December 2007Case 16-CA-025965ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 December 2007Case 16-CA-025964ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 7 December 2007Case 36-CA-010217ClosedPortland, ORRegion 19Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 25 January 2007Case 06-CA-035477ClosedPittsburgh, PARegion 06Workers in the unit 40
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 18 December 2006Case 18-CA-018240ClosedMinneapolis, MNRegion 18Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 24 June 2005Case 29-CA-027022ClosedFlushing, NYRegion 29Workers in the unit 400
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 9 July 2004Case 14-CA-027942ClosedFlorissant, MORegion 14Workers in the unit 1,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 22 April 2004Case 14-CA-027850ClosedFlorissant, MORegion 14Workers in the unit 205
ARAMARK CORPORATION
RD
Filed 14 January 2003Case 09-RD-002026ClosedMiamisburg, OHRegion 09
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 19 February 2002Case 06-CA-032566ClosedPittsburgh, PARegion 06Workers in the unit 40
ARAMARK CORPORATION
CA
Filed 29 October 2001Case 09-CA-038848ClosedLouisville, KYRegion 09Workers in the unit 120
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 February 1998Case 02-CA-031238ClosedPhiladelphia, PARegion 02Workers in the unit 10

Last refreshed 19 September 2026. What is in it, and what is not.

The Labor Board FYI is independent, and is not the Board or any government agency. Where a number here disagrees with the Board's, the Board is right: tell us at [email protected]. If a name here is a private person and not a business or a union, write to the same address and it comes off. Where this comes from.