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.

United Parcel Service

3,834 cases in this site's copy of the record · 323 of those 3834 are marked open by the Board · Region 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32 · ANDERSON, CA; ASHLAND, MA; Aberdeen, MD; Abington, MA; Acworth, GA; Addison, IL and more

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

This name is gathered, along with others, on the United Parcel Service page.

The Board has also spelled this name United Parcel Service, Inc. (509), United Parcel Service Co. (3). Every spelling of this name.

What kinds of case

Type	What it is	Here
CA	Charge against an employer	3818
RC	Petition for an election	14
UC	Petition to clarify a unit	2

The cases

Page 24 of 26, newest first: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 June 2007Case 28-CA-021447ClosedPhoenix, AZRegion 28Workers in the unit 500
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 26 June 2007Case 10-CA-036887ClosedDoraville, GARegion 10Workers in the unit 3,500
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 25 June 2007Case 28-CA-021441ClosedMesa, AZRegion 28Workers in the unit 100
Petition for an election
RC
Filed 20 June 2007Case 17-RC-012496ClosedLincoln, NERegion 14Workers in the unit 2
Included: All full-time and regular part-time employees employed by the employer at its facility located at 3133 North 33rd Street, Lincoln, Nebraska. Excluded: Office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, supervisory employees as defined in the Act as well as employees of other companies providing services and all other employees of the employer.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 14 June 2007Case 09-CA-043661ClosedLouisville, KYRegion 09Workers in the unit 6,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 13 June 2007Case 28-CA-021421ClosedTempe, AZRegion 28Workers in the unit 10,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 June 2007Case 06-CA-035627ClosedNew Stanton, PARegion 06Workers in the unit 1,200
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 June 2007Case 26-CA-022774ClosedMemphis, TNRegion 15Workers in the unit 500
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 June 2007Case 26-CA-022773ClosedNashville, TNRegion 15Workers in the unit 500
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 1 June 2007Case 12-CA-025435ClosedFort Lauderdale, FLRegion 12Workers in the unit 500
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 25 May 2007Case 13-CA-044057ClosedHodgkins, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 21 May 2007Case 11-CA-021567ClosedWest Columbia, SCRegion 10Workers in the unit 200,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 21 May 2007Case 11-CA-021566ClosedWest Columbia, SCRegion 10Workers in the unit 200,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 18 May 2007Case 26-CA-022757ClosedMemphis, TNRegion 15Workers in the unit 300
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 16 May 2007Case 32-CA-023259ClosedFresno, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 485
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 16 May 2007Case 13-CA-044028ClosedHodgkins, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 7,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 14 May 2007Case 13-CA-044017ClosedHodgkins, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 6,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 10 May 2007Case 06-CA-035590ClosedPittsburgh, PARegion 06Workers in the unit 200
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 May 2007Case 13-CA-044006ClosedNorthbrook, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 55
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 May 2007Case 06-CA-035584ClosedNew Stanton, PARegion 06Workers in the unit 1,250
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 May 2007Case 06-CA-035583ClosedNew Stanton, PARegion 06Workers in the unit 1,250
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 25 April 2007Case 27-CA-020467ClosedSalt Lake City, UTRegion 27Workers in the unit 2,000
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 23 April 2007Case 09-CA-043560ClosedCincinnati, OHRegion 09Workers in the unit 1,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 10 April 2007Case 16-CA-025536ClosedSan Antonio, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 200
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 April 2007Case 11-CA-021521ClosedCharlotte, NCRegion 10Workers in the unit 1,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 April 2007Case 11-CA-021518ClosedCharlotte, NCRegion 10Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 4 April 2007Case 13-CA-043935ClosedNorthbrook, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 500
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 4 April 2007Case 01-CA-043867ClosedNorwood, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 1,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 2 April 2007Case 11-CA-021512ClosedCharlotte, NCRegion 10Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 2 April 2007Case 01-CA-043862ClosedNorwood, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 1,000
Petition for an election
RC
Filed 16 March 2007Case 06-RC-012576ClosedNew Stanton, PARegion 06Workers in the unit 26
Included: All senior and junior technicians employed in the Laurel Mountain Region; excluding, All supervisors, office, clerical, managerial, guards, and all others as defined by the Act.
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 15 March 2007Case 22-CA-027863ClosedSecaucus, NJRegion 22Workers in the unit 90,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 March 2007Case 05-CA-033498ClosedRichmond, VARegion 05Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 March 2007Case 14-CA-028914ClosedSaint Louis, MORegion 14Workers in the unit 350
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 1 March 2007Case 12-CA-025313ClosedJacksonville, FLRegion 12Workers in the unit 250,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 27 February 2007Case 04-CA-035197ClosedStroudsburg, PARegion 04Workers in the unit 98
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 26 February 2007Case 10-CA-036708ClosedStatesboro, GARegion 10Workers in the unit 45
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 22 February 2007Case 27-CA-020402ClosedSalt Lake City, UTRegion 27Workers in the unit 2,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 20 February 2007Case 01-CA-043792ClosedShrewsbury, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 1,200
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 14 February 2007Case 12-CA-025285ClosedHollywood, FLRegion 12Workers in the unit 1,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 February 2007Case 32-CA-023051ClosedOakland, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 5,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 February 2007Case 05-CA-033451ClosedRichmond, VARegion 05Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 February 2007Case 06-CA-035489ClosedNew Stanton, PARegion 06Workers in the unit 30
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 2 February 2007Case 16-CA-025414ClosedTexarkana, ARRegion 16Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 1 February 2007Case 13-CA-043823ClosedChicago, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 1,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 29 January 2007Case 15-CA-018191ClosedPort Allen, LARegion 15Workers in the unit 100
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 29 January 2007Case 09-CA-043429ClosedCincinnati, OHRegion 09Workers in the unit 3,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 23 January 2007Case 07-CA-050113ClosedPontiac, MIRegion 07Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 22 January 2007Case 10-CA-036636ClosedAtlanta, GARegion 10Workers in the unit 1,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 January 2007Case 29-CA-028118ClosedFarmingville, NYRegion 29Workers in the unit 80
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 January 2007Case 20-CA-033240ClosedSan Francisco, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 30,000
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 3 January 2007Case 09-CA-043361ClosedFlorence, KYRegion 09Workers in the unit 150
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 December 2006Case 19-CA-030648ClosedRedmond, WARegion 19Workers in the unit 100
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 8 December 2006Case 09-CA-043297ClosedCincinnati, OHRegion 09Workers in the unit 1,800
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 December 2006Case 13-CA-043742ClosedHodgkins, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 500
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 December 2006Case 01-CA-043648ClosedNorwood, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 1
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 1 December 2006Case 32-CA-022950ClosedOakland, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 45
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 November 2006Case 10-CA-036562ClosedAtlanta, GARegion 10Workers in the unit 2,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 20 November 2006Case 32-CA-022924ClosedOakland, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 500
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 20 November 2006Case 32-CA-022923ClosedOakland, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 500
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 17 November 2006Case 15-CA-018141ClosedPort Allen, LARegion 15Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 16 November 2006Case 21-CA-037548ClosedCerritos, CARegion 21Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 15 November 2006Case 11-CA-021390ClosedCharlotte, NCRegion 10Workers in the unit 300,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 15 November 2006Case 01-CA-043597ClosedNorwood, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 20
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 November 2006Case 22-CA-027648ClosedSecaucus, NJRegion 22Workers in the unit 9,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 2 November 2006Case 19-CA-030586ClosedRedmond, WARegion 19Workers in the unit 600
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 2 November 2006Case 19-CA-030585ClosedRedmond, WARegion 19Workers in the unit 6,001
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 27 October 2006Case 09-CA-043219ClosedFlorence, KYRegion 09Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 10 October 2006Case 32-CA-022871ClosedOakland, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 500
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 10 October 2006Case 17-CA-023699ClosedLenexa, KSRegion 14Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 3 October 2006Case 28-CA-021020ClosedLas Vegas, NVRegion 28Workers in the unit 600
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 September 2006Case 20-CA-033148ClosedSacramento, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 250
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 September 2006Case 11-CA-021330ClosedLenoir, NCRegion 10Workers in the unit 80
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 25 September 2006Case 11-CA-021324ClosedLenoir, NCRegion 10Workers in the unit 80
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 22 September 2006Case 08-CA-036794ClosedCleveland, OHRegion 08Workers in the unit 400
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 7 September 2006Case 10-CA-036456ClosedDoraville, GARegion 10Workers in the unit 60
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 September 2006Case 12-CA-025119ClosedWaycross, GARegion 12Workers in the unit 5,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 14 August 2006Case 16-CA-025132ClosedSan Antonio, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 200
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 August 2006Case 28-CA-020942ClosedSilver City, NMRegion 28Workers in the unit 8
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 August 2006Case 20-CA-033087ClosedSan Bruno, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 500
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 7 August 2006Case 25-CA-030049ClosedINDIANAPOLIS, INRegion 25Workers in the unit 400
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 31 July 2006Case 09-CA-042986ClosedCincinnati, OHRegion 09Workers in the unit 3,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 27 July 2006Case 24-CA-010433ClosedCarolina, PRRegion 12Workers in the unit 300
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 26 July 2006Case 20-CA-033073ClosedSacramento, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 250
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 24 July 2006Case 20-CA-033067ClosedSan Bruno, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 500
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 24 July 2006Case 20-CA-033066ClosedSan Francisco, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 500
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 19 July 2006Case 20-CA-033064ClosedSacramento, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 250
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 17 July 2006Case 16-CA-025077ClosedBryan, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 July 2006Case 20-CA-033052ClosedSan Bruno, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 500
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 11 July 2006Case 14-CA-028696ClosedQuincy, ILRegion 14Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 20 June 2006Case 26-CA-022487ClosedPaducah, KYRegion 15Workers in the unit 98
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 16 June 2006Case 24-CA-010405ClosedCarolina, PRRegion 12Workers in the unit 300
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 1 June 2006Case 07-CA-049558ClosedMadison Heights, MIRegion 07Workers in the unit 1,000
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 2 May 2006Case 09-CA-042821ClosedFlorence, KYRegion 09Workers in the unit 95
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 1 May 2006Case 20-CA-032975ClosedWest Sacramento, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 300
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 13 April 2006Case 05-CA-033005ClosedChantilly, VARegion 05Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 5 April 2006Case 04-CA-034571ClosedHarrisburg, PARegion 04Workers in the unit 15
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 30 March 2006Case 04-CA-034553ClosedHarrisburg, PARegion 04Workers in the unit 500
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 27 March 2006Case 09-CA-042731ClosedCincinnati, OHRegion 09Workers in the unit 3,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 24 March 2006Case 18-CA-017978ClosedMinneapolis, MNRegion 18Workers in the unit 700
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 21 March 2006Case 07-CA-049383ClosedMadison Heights, MIRegion 07Workers in the unit 1,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 20 March 2006Case 19-CA-030248ClosedRedmond, WARegion 19Workers in the unit 600
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 14 March 2006Case 13-CA-043239ClosedHodgkins, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 3 March 2006Case 07-CA-049327ClosedRoyal Oak, MIRegion 07Workers in the unit 1,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 22 February 2006Case 11-CA-021081ClosedLumberton, NCRegion 10Workers in the unit 80
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 13 February 2006Case 11-CA-021070ClosedGreensboro, NCRegion 10Workers in the unit 1,400
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 February 2006Case 06-CA-035057ClosedWilliamsport, PARegion 06Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 February 2006Case 13-CA-043150ClosedHodgkins, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 1,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 31 January 2006Case 01-CA-043045ClosedManchester, NHRegion 01Workers in the unit 100,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 30 January 2006Case 04-CA-034424ClosedHorsham, PARegion 04Workers in the unit 1,200
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 24 January 2006Case 19-CA-030183ClosedRedmond, WARegion 19Workers in the unit 3,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 19 January 2006Case 18-CA-017898ClosedFargo, NDRegion 18Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 17 January 2006Case 20-CA-032855ClosedQuincy, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 17 January 2006Case 20-CA-032854ClosedSusanville, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 10
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 13 January 2006Case 31-CA-027669ClosedVentura, CARegion 31Workers in the unit 100
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 13 January 2006Case 09-CA-042571ClosedClarksville, INRegion 09Workers in the unit 125
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 10 January 2006Case 09-CA-042555ClosedElsmere, KYRegion 09Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 January 2006Case 13-CA-043089ClosedChicago, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 300,000
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 4 January 2006Case 09-CA-042541ClosedCincinnati, OHRegion 09Workers in the unit 3,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 3 January 2006Case 15-CA-017902ClosedPort Allen, LARegion 15Workers in the unit 5
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 27 December 2005Case 09-CA-042525ClosedClarksville, INRegion 09Workers in the unit 125
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 19 December 2005Case 25-CA-029823ClosedINDIANAPOLIS, INRegion 25Workers in the unit 400
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
CA
Filed 14 December 2005Case 09-CA-042514ClosedCincinnati, OHRegion 09Workers in the unit 3,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 9 December 2005Case 11-CA-021024ClosedLumberton, NCRegion 10Workers in the unit 80
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 7 December 2005Case 27-CA-019867ClosedBoise, IDRegion 27Workers in the unit 60,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 23 November 2005Case 32-CA-022370ClosedOakland, CARegion 32Workers in the unit 5,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 17 November 2005Case 03-CA-025655ClosedEast Syracuse, NYRegion 03Workers in the unit 5
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 November 2005Case 20-CA-032784ClosedWest Sacramento, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 500
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 27 October 2005Case 11-CA-020967ClosedLumberton, NCRegion 10Workers in the unit 80
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 25 October 2005Case 22-CA-027147ClosedSecaucus, NJRegion 22Workers in the unit 8,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 17 October 2005Case 12-CA-024695ClosedHialeah, FLRegion 12Workers in the unit 75
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 October 2005Case 13-CA-042930ClosedChicago, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 80
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 4 October 2005Case 27-CA-019796ClosedSalt Lake City, UTRegion 27Workers in the unit 3,000,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 September 2005Case 13-CA-042879ClosedAddison, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 6 September 2005Case 13-CA-042878ClosedAddison, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 2 September 2005Case 13-CA-042877ClosedHodgkins, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 23 August 2005Case 28-CA-020436ClosedAlbuquerque, NMRegion 28Workers in the unit 1,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 22 August 2005Case 03-CA-025523ClosedEast Syracuse, NYRegion 03Workers in the unit 900
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 8 August 2005Case 16-CA-024433ClosedHouston, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 200
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 28 July 2005Case 04-CA-034044ClosedHorsham, PARegion 04Workers in the unit 1,000
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 20 July 2005Case 13-CA-042758ClosedPalatine, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 20 July 2005Case 13-CA-042756ClosedPalatine, ILRegion 13Workers in the unit 50
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 July 2005Case 30-CA-017246ClosedElm Grove, WIRegion 18Workers in the unit 75
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 July 2005Case 01-CA-042692ClosedChelmsford, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 20
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 July 2005Case 01-CA-042691ClosedChelmsford, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 20
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 12 July 2005Case 01-CA-042690ClosedChelmsford, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 20
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 21 June 2005Case 16-CA-024348ClosedDallas, TXRegion 16Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 16 June 2005Case 30-CA-017224ClosedWatertown, WIRegion 18Workers in the unit 100
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 9 June 2005Case 20-CA-032534ClosedSan Francisco, CARegion 20Workers in the unit 500
Charge against an employer
CA
Filed 9 June 2005Case 01-CA-042622ClosedChelmsford, MARegion 01Workers in the unit 25

Page 24 of 26, newest first: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Last refreshed 22 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.