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 Uniform Services

113 cases in this site's copy of the record · 0 of those 113 are marked open by the Board · Region 01, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 32 · Baltimore, MD; Birmingham, AL; Burr Ridge, IL; CAROLINA, PR; Carolina, PR; Caspian, 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	100
RC	Petition for an election	4
RD	Petition to decertify	8
UC	Petition to clarify a unit	1

The cases

Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 1 September 2023Case 16-CA-325178ClosedStafford, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 43
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 3 May 2023Case 13-CA-317338ClosedChicago, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 21 March 2023Case 32-CA-314946ClosedStockton, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 27 January 2023Case 18-CA-311063ClosedOttumwa, IARegion 18Workers in the unit 95
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 22 December 2022Case 20-CA-309417ClosedSacramento, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 80
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 19 July 2022Case 32-CA-300490ClosedStockton, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 April 2022Case 25-CA-293621ClosedEast Moline, ILRegion 25Workers in the unit 68
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 4 March 2022Case 21-CA-291771ClosedRiverside, CARegion 21Workers in the unit 20
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 17 February 2022Case 25-CA-290787ClosedRock Island, ILRegion 25Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 17 February 2022Case 25-CA-290779ClosedRock Island, ILRegion 25Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 2 February 2022Case 18-CA-289910ClosedHibbing, MNRegion 18Workers in the unit 40
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 January 2022Case 25-CA-288801ClosedEast Moline, ILRegion 25Workers in the unit 68
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 1 December 2021Case 25-CA-287017ClosedSpringfield, ILRegion 25Workers in the unit 45
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 23 November 2021Case 25-CA-286696ClosedEast Moline, ILRegion 25Workers in the unit 68
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 May 2021Case 25-CA-277015ClosedEast Moline, ILRegion 25Workers in the unit 40
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 December 2020Case 25-CA-269906ClosedEast Moline, ILRegion 25Workers in the unit 68
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 18 September 2020Case 32-CA-266538ClosedStockton, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 1 September 2020Case 32-CA-265557ClosedStockton, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 13 August 2020Case 32-CA-264643ClosedStockton, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 100
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 13 May 2020Case 09-CA-260426ClosedColumbus, OHRegion 09Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 21 November 2019Case 19-CA-252279ClosedKent, WARegion 19Workers in the unit 100
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 22 July 2019Case 09-CA-245334ClosedLexington, KYRegion 09Workers in the unit 90
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 3 May 2018Case 01-CA-219609ClosedLAWRENCE, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 24
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 10 April 2018Case 01-CA-218199ClosedLawrence, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 24
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 10 October 2017Case 12-CA-207612ClosedPompano Beach, FLRegion 12Workers in the unit 40
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 3 August 2017Case 12-CA-203647ClosedOrlando, FLRegion 12Workers in the unit 40
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 23 May 2017Case 25-CA-199269ClosedEast Moline, ILRegion 25Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 23 May 2017Case 12-CA-199403ClosedOrlando, FLRegion 12Workers in the unit 40
ARAMARK Uniform Services
CA
Filed 24 April 2017Case 25-CA-197374ClosedEast Moline, ILRegion 25Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 16 March 2017Case 01-CA-194969ClosedLawrence, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 14
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 28 September 2016Case 18-CA-185173ClosedDES MOINES, IARegion 18Workers in the unit 59
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 7 September 2016Case 18-CA-183818ClosedDes Moines, IARegion 18Workers in the unit 59
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 9 September 2015Case 21-CA-159671ClosedSANTA ANA, CARegion 21Workers in the unit 60
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 18 May 2015Case 12-CA-152493ClosedCAROLINA, PRRegion 12Workers in the unit 35
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 4 May 2015Case 12-CA-151382ClosedPompano Beach, FLRegion 12Workers in the unit 40
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 2 September 2014Case 12-CA-135870ClosedCAROLINA, PRRegion 12Workers in the unit 35
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 August 2014Case 15-CA-134396ClosedPine Bluff, ARRegion 15Workers in the unit 70
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 18 February 2014Case 25-CA-122639ClosedSOUTH BEND, INRegion 25Workers in the unit 27
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 18 February 2014Case 25-CA-122634ClosedSOUTH BEND, INRegion 25Workers in the unit 27
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 September 2013Case 24-CA-112789ClosedCarolina, PRRegion 12Workers in the unit 60
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 August 2013Case 25-CA-110895ClosedEast Moline, ILRegion 25Workers in the unit 110
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
RC
Filed 17 July 2013Case 10-RC-109351ClosedSAVANNAH, GARegion 10Workers in the unit 13
All full-time and regular part-time route delivery drivers, including support drivers, employerd by the Employer at its 2610 Causton Bluff Road, Savannah, Georgia facility, but excluding all temporary employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, managerial employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 27 June 2013Case 25-CA-108102ClosedINDIANAPOLIS, INRegion 25Workers in the unit 1,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 4 December 2012Case 24-CA-094270ClosedCAROLINA, PRRegion 12Workers in the unit 60
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 25 October 2012Case 24-CA-092099ClosedCAROLINA, PRRegion 12Workers in the unit 60
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 26 July 2012Case 25-CA-086021ClosedINDIANAPOLIS, INRegion 25Workers in the unit 30
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 26 April 2012Case 05-CA-079682ClosedBaltimore, MDRegion 05Workers in the unit 25
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 19 April 2012Case 18-CA-079118ClosedFridley, MNRegion 18Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 16 April 2012Case 25-CA-078877ClosedEVANSVILLE, INRegion 25Workers in the unit 57
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 24 February 2012Case 14-CA-075178ClosedEast Moline, ILRegion 14Workers in the unit 94
Petition to decertify
RD
Filed 17 January 2012Case 27-RD-072565ClosedSalt Lake City, UTRegion 27Workers in the unit 31
Included: Production Excluded:
Petition to decertify
RD
Filed 3 January 2012Case 27-RD-071744ClosedDenver, CORegion 27Workers in the unit 28
Included: Production - wash floor - bulk fold - soil count - press - tunnel, sorts (distribution), dryer operator, mat rollers, load builders. Excluded: stockroom employees, maintenance, office clerical, fleet manager, management employees, supervisors.
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
RD
Filed 8 December 2011Case 25-RD-070348ClosedINDIANAPOLIS, INRegion 25Workers in the unit 46
Included: All full-time and part-time production workers, including janitors and stockroom clerks, employed by Aramark at 2050 W. Oliver Street, Indianapolis, IN 46221 Excluded: All maintenance, service drivers, office clerical, fleet managers, management employees, supervisors and guards as defined by the Act.
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 31 October 2011Case 04-CA-067876ClosedREADING, PARegion 04Workers in the unit 50
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 15 September 2011Case 24-CA-064609ClosedCAROLINA, PRRegion 12Workers in the unit 35
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 September 2011Case 16-CA-064258ClosedDallas, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 300
Petition for an election
RC
Filed 6 September 2011Case 05-RC-063917ClosedBaltimore, MDRegion 05Workers in the unit 2
Included: All full-time and regular part-time warehouse/dock loaders Excluded: All route sales representatives, office clerical and supervisors as defined in the Act
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 19 August 2011Case 17-CA-062936ClosedSpringfield, MORegion 14Workers in the unit 25
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 20 June 2011Case 24-CA-011877ClosedCarolina, PRRegion 12Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 December 2010Case 10-CA-038754ClosedBirmingham, ALRegion 10Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 4 August 2010Case 11-CA-022771ClosedGreensboro, NCRegion 10Workers in the unit 80
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 July 2010Case 16-CA-027530ClosedStafford, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 75
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 24 June 2010Case 17-CA-024887ClosedSpringfield, MORegion 14Workers in the unit 54
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 May 2010Case 11-CA-022671ClosedVinton, VARegion 10Workers in the unit 70
Petition to decertify
RD
Filed 26 April 2010Case 30-RD-001519ClosedCaspian, MIRegion 18Workers in the unit 38
Included: all full time and part time production employees in Caspian, Michigan
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 19 April 2010Case 19-CA-032479ClosedKent, WARegion 19Workers in the unit 4
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 2 March 2010Case 17-CA-024806ClosedSpringfield, MORegion 14Workers in the unit 54
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 22 February 2010Case 28-CA-022909ClosedPhoenix, AZRegion 28Workers in the unit 5
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 January 2010Case 13-CA-045755ClosedChicago, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 22 December 2009Case 13-CA-045745ClosedChicago, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 2 December 2009Case 04-CA-037190ClosedReading, PARegion 04Workers in the unit 20
Aramark/Uniform Services
CA
Filed 20 August 2009Case 03-CA-027296ClosedRochester, NYRegion 03Workers in the unit 28
Petition for an election
RC
Filed 13 August 2009Case 12-RC-009378ClosedFort Myers, FLRegion 12Workers in the unit 45
Included: Seeking a self-determination election among "X" employee(s) (referred to as "soil count" employee(s) by the Company) working at the Employer's Fort Myers, Florida Facility, for inclusion with the route sales representatives (RSR) and route sales support (RSS) employees employed at the Employer's Fort Myers, Auburndale, and Tampa, Florida locations currently represented for purposes of collective bargaining ...
Aramark/Uniform Services
RD
Filed 13 August 2009Case 03-RD-001569ClosedRochester, NYRegion 03Workers in the unit 29
See attached page.
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 August 2009Case 07-CA-052300ClosedDetroit, MIRegion 07Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 10 July 2009Case 36-CA-010492ClosedCentral Point, ORRegion 19Workers in the unit 14
Petition to clarify a unit
UC
Filed 8 July 2009Case 12-UC-000170ClosedFort Myers, FLRegion 12Workers in the unit 12
UC Petition proposes to add one warehouse utility worker to the following unit, All full and part time Routes Sales Representatives (RSR), Route Sales Support (RSS), Helpers, Wholesale Drivers, Truck Mecheanics, Relay Drivers (Tractor Trailer), Janitors, Operating Engineer I, Engineer II, & Maintenance Mehanics. Excluded: All other employees including managerial employees, supervisors and guards as defined in the ...
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 May 2009Case 08-CA-038323ClosedToledo, OHRegion 08Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 29 April 2009Case 27-CA-021216ClosedSalt Lake City, UTRegion 27Workers in the unit 38
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 10 March 2009Case 27-CA-021167ClosedSalt Lake City, UTRegion 27Workers in the unit 38
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 13 February 2009Case 27-CA-021146ClosedSalt Lake City, UTRegion 27Workers in the unit 38
Petition to decertify
RD
Filed 9 February 2009Case 27-RD-001222ClosedSalt Lake City, UTRegion 27Workers in the unit 38
Included: All regular full-time and part-time production employees in Salt Lake City, Utah. Excluded: All maintenance, service drivers, office clerical, fleet manager, management employees, supervisors and guards as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
RD
Filed 28 November 2008Case 25-RD-001520ClosedIndianapolis, INRegion 25Workers in the unit 46
Included: All full-time and part-time production workers, including janitors and stockroom clerks, employed by Aramark at 2050 W. Oliver Street, Indianaplis, IN 46221 Excluded: Al maintenance, service drivers, office clerical, fleet managers, management employees, supervisors and guards as definded by the Act.
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 21 November 2008Case 20-CA-034193ClosedSacramento, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 14 August 2008Case 22-CA-028494ClosedNewark, NJRegion 22Workers in the unit 150
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 23 June 2008Case 11-CA-021976ClosedVinton, VARegion 10Workers in the unit 75
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 16 June 2008Case 30-CA-018056ClosedMadison, WIRegion 18Workers in the unit 94
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 May 2008Case 30-CA-018038ClosedMadison, WIRegion 18Workers in the unit 94
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 27 March 2008Case 30-CA-018000ClosedMadison, WIRegion 18Workers in the unit 94
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 3 March 2008Case 08-CA-037657ClosedToledo, OHRegion 08
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 3 March 2008Case 08-CA-037656ClosedToledo, OHRegion 08Workers in the unit 30
Petition for an election
RC
Filed 25 January 2008Case 12-RC-009299ClosedTampa, FLRegion 12Workers in the unit 10
Included: Route Sales Support (RSS) Excluded: Management, Administrative
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 13 November 2007Case 32-CA-023633ClosedFresno, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 July 2007Case 22-CA-028007ClosedUnion, NJRegion 22Workers in the unit 45
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 29 June 2007Case 16-CA-025679ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 65
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 1 June 2007Case 17-CA-023877ClosedLansing, KSRegion 14Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 9 May 2007Case 17-CA-023863ClosedOklahoma City, OKRegion 14Workers in the unit 31
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 May 2007Case 16-CA-025588ClosedTyler, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 85
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 10 April 2007Case 14-CA-028946ClosedGranite City, ILRegion 14Workers in the unit 55
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 March 2007Case 22-CA-027878ClosedUnion, NJRegion 22Workers in the unit 40
Petition to decertify
RD
Filed 20 March 2007Case 17-RD-001753ClosedSpringfield, MORegion 14Workers in the unit 50
All full-time and regular part-time production employees employed by the Employer at its facility located at 2950 West Catalpa Street, Springfield, Missouri All office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees.
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 September 2006Case 06-CA-035314ClosedPittsburgh, PARegion 06Workers in the unit 15
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 1 May 2006Case 13-CA-043351ClosedBurr Ridge, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 18 June 2004Case 18-CA-017332ClosedFridley, MNRegion 18Workers in the unit 30
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 16 March 2004Case 09-CA-040969ClosedDayton, OHRegion 09Workers in the unit 60
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 29 September 2003Case 09-CA-040575ClosedDayton, OHRegion 09Workers in the unit 50
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 27 August 2003Case 09-CA-040482ClosedDayton, OHRegion 09Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 10 March 2003Case 18-CA-016778ClosedOwatonna, MNRegion 18Workers in the unit 16
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 26 February 2003Case 17-CA-022119ClosedOmaha, NERegion 14Workers in the unit 18
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 27 June 2002Case 06-CA-032815ClosedPittsburgh, PARegion 06Workers in the unit 15
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
CA
Filed 15 February 2002Case 09-CA-039088ClosedCincinnati, OHRegion 09Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 23 March 2001Case 16-CA-021015ClosedFort Worth, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 34
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 9 November 2000Case 33-CA-013496ClosedRockford, ILRegion 25Workers in the unit 50

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.