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.

Otis Elevator Company

73 cases in this site's copy of the record · 0 of those 73 are marked open by the Board · Region 01, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 27, 28, 32 · ATLANTA, GA; Akron, OH; Albany, NY; Atlanta, GA; Austin, TX; Barrigada, GU 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	72
RC	Petition for an election	1

The cases

Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 23 May 2025Case 12-CA-366222ClosedSan Juan, PRRegion 12Workers in the unit 26
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 18 November 2021Case 27-CA-286502ClosedCentennial, CORegion 27Workers in the unit 69,000
Petition for an election
RC
Filed 6 October 2021Case 20-RC-284109ClosedBarrigada, GURegion 20Workers in the unit 16
Included: All full-time and regular part-time employees employed by the Employer on the Island of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands engaged in the service, repair, modernization, construction and installation of elevators, escalators, and other conveyance equipment. Excluded: All other employees, salesmen, managers, office clericals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 16 July 2020Case 14-CA-263101ClosedSaint Charles, MORegion 14Workers in the unit 2
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 18 September 2019Case 28-CA-248466ClosedLas Vegas, NVRegion 28Workers in the unit 60
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 3 September 2019Case 28-CA-248227ClosedLas Vegas, NVRegion 28Workers in the unit 60
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 March 2016Case 15-CA-171556ClosedMemphis, TNRegion 15Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 21 January 2016Case 14-CA-168107ClosedSaint Louis, MORegion 14Workers in the unit 40
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 2 July 2015Case 18-CA-155284ClosedMadison, WIRegion 18Workers in the unit 25
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 January 2015Case 15-CA-143914ClosedMemphis, TNRegion 15Workers in the unit 4,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 16 December 2014Case 07-CA-142983ClosedFarmington Hills, MIRegion 07Workers in the unit 60
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 December 2014Case 13-CA-142448ClosedLombard, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 235
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 30 September 2014Case 10-CA-137859ClosedAtlanta, GARegion 10Workers in the unit 80
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 August 2014Case 13-CA-135661ClosedLombard, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 235
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 August 2014Case 10-CA-134496ClosedAtlanta, GARegion 10Workers in the unit 80
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 August 2014Case 10-CA-134451ClosedAtlanta, GARegion 10Workers in the unit 80
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 7 August 2014Case 13-CA-134320ClosedChicago, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 236
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 23 July 2014Case 10-CA-133438ClosedAtlanta, GARegion 10Workers in the unit 80
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 25 March 2014Case 03-CA-125079ClosedAlbany, NYRegion 03Workers in the unit 33
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 February 2013Case 12-CA-098138ClosedOrlando, FLRegion 12Workers in the unit 37
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY
CA
Filed 12 December 2012Case 08-CA-094735ClosedAkron, OHRegion 08Workers in the unit 20
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY
CA
Filed 14 August 2012Case 10-CA-087342ClosedATLANTA, GARegion 10Workers in the unit 1,000
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY
CA
Filed 13 April 2012Case 10-CA-078874ClosedFARMINGTON, CTRegion 10Workers in the unit 3,700
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 February 2012Case 20-CA-075575ClosedNorth Highlands, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 30
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 18 October 2011Case 06-CA-066881ClosedPittsburgh, PARegion 06Workers in the unit 35
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 21 September 2011Case 06-CA-064965ClosedPittsburgh, PARegion 06Workers in the unit 35
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 July 2011Case 16-CA-028149ClosedDallas, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 70
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 July 2011Case 21-CA-039872ClosedSan Diego, CARegion 21Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 3 June 2011Case 21-CA-039828ClosedSan Diego, CARegion 21Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 25 May 2011Case 21-CA-039819ClosedSan Diego, CARegion 21Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 25 May 2011Case 21-CA-039818ClosedSan Diego, CARegion 21Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 9 March 2011Case 24-CA-011750ClosedSan Juan, PRRegion 12Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 26 November 2010Case 32-CA-025495ClosedSunnyvale, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 30
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 1 November 2010Case 17-CA-024997ClosedKansas City, KSRegion 14Workers in the unit 43
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 24 August 2010Case 04-CA-037646ClosedMorristown, NJRegion 04Workers in the unit 150
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 19 August 2010Case 01-CA-046322ClosedNeedham, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 25
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 23 July 2010Case 28-CA-023117ClosedLas Vegas, NVRegion 28Workers in the unit 70
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 25 June 2010Case 04-CA-037543ClosedMoorestown, NJRegion 04Workers in the unit 150
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 May 2010Case 28-CA-023028ClosedLas Vegas, NVRegion 28Workers in the unit 70
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 April 2010Case 04-CA-037422ClosedMoorestown, NJRegion 04Workers in the unit 150
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 22 July 2009Case 24-CA-011275ClosedSan Juan, PRRegion 12Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 April 2009Case 19-CA-031852ClosedSpokane, WARegion 19Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 March 2009Case 34-CA-012284ClosedEast Hartford, CTRegion 01Workers in the unit 78
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 4 February 2009Case 24-CA-011118ClosedSan Juan, PRRegion 12Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 9 July 2008Case 04-CA-036227ClosedMorristown, NJRegion 04Workers in the unit 150
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 26 December 2007Case 04-CA-035863ClosedMoorestown, NJRegion 04Workers in the unit 150
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 25 October 2007Case 21-CA-038084ClosedPasadena, CARegion 21Workers in the unit 40
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 17 September 2007Case 16-CA-025811ClosedSan Antonio, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 20 August 2007Case 20-CA-033552ClosedSan Francisco, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 26 July 2007Case 21-CA-037900ClosedSan Diego, CARegion 21Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 25 July 2007Case 20-CA-033512ClosedSan Francisco, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 July 2007Case 01-CA-044040ClosedNeedham, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 200
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 June 2007Case 33-CA-015401ClosedPeoria, ILRegion 25Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 18 May 2007Case 28-CA-021388ClosedLas Vegas, NVRegion 28Workers in the unit 33
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 4 November 2005Case 13-CA-042971ClosedLombard, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 250
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 4 August 2005Case 13-CA-042796ClosedLemont, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 250
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 2 June 2005Case 34-CA-011200ClosedEast Hartford, CTRegion 01Workers in the unit 82
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 February 2005Case 13-CA-042462ClosedChicago, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 15 December 2004Case 13-CA-042294ClosedLombard, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 250
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 3 June 2003Case 11-CA-019993ClosedCharlotte, NCRegion 10Workers in the unit 60
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 May 2003Case 16-CA-022774ClosedAustin, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 April 2003Case 04-CA-032093ClosedMoorestown, NJRegion 04Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 24 April 2003Case 21-CA-035698ClosedPasadena, CARegion 21Workers in the unit 40
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 April 2003Case 05-CA-031179ClosedRichmond, VARegion 05Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 February 2003Case 16-CA-022565ClosedDallas, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 76
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 February 2003Case 03-CA-024073ClosedAlbany, NYRegion 03Workers in the unit 28
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 24 January 2003Case 17-CA-022063ClosedTulsa, OKRegion 14Workers in the unit 17
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 22 January 2003Case 27-CA-018354ClosedDenver, CORegion 27Workers in the unit 85
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 21 January 2003Case 26-CA-021058ClosedLittle Rock, ARRegion 15Workers in the unit 20
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 17 January 2003Case 16-CA-022491ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 80
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 14 January 2003Case 14-CA-027264ClosedSaint Louis, MORegion 14Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 13 January 2003Case 18-CA-016723ClosedRoseville, MNRegion 18Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 21 June 1999Case 37-CA-005458ClosedHonolulu, HIRegion 20Workers in the unit 75

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.