NLRB Case 14-CA-379871 Targets St. Peters Domino’s for Alleged Retaliation

An unfair labor practice charge tied to a Domino’s Pizza franchise in St. Peters, Missouri, was filed with the National Labor Relations Board on Jan. 27, 2026. “An unfair labor practice charge (Case No. 14-CA-379871) was filed on Jan. 27, 2026 against a Domino’s Pizza employer in St. Peters, Missouri.” The NLRB docket entry lists the allegation as a Section 8(a)(1) violation of the National Labor Relations Act, described on the docket as “concerted activities/retaliation, discharge or discipline.”

The case number itself signals where the charge was filed and the type of allegation. As the NLRB guidance explains, “Each unfair labor practice charge is assigned a case number which includes the number of the Regional Office in which the charge is filed, followed by two letters which represent the sections of the Act alleged to have been violated...” The numeric prefix 14 indicates Region 14, and the CA designation maps to employer charges under Section 8(a)(1) through 8(a)(5), with this docket specifically listing 8(a)(1).

The procedural posture beyond filing is unclear from the available record. NLRB guidance lays out the basic filing requirements: “To initiate an unfair labor practice investigation, a signed and dated charge form should be filed. The charge form should be fully completed and contain the full name and address of the person or organization filing the charge, the full name and address of the charged party, and a brief statement of the conduct constituting the alleged [...]” The guidance also notes that “The charging party must sign and date the charge. Sec. 102.12, Rules and Regulations.” Commonly used forms include NLRB-501 for charges against employers, and the NLRB guidance mentions NLRB-508 and NLRB-509 among related forms.

The agency will normally serve a copy of a charge on the named respondent after docketing, but “delays may occur before service is accomplished.” The guidance further instructs Regional Offices to assist filers in correcting defective charges and to balance that assistance against timeliness rules under Section 10(b) of the Act, which can require immediate docketing even if the paperwork is imperfect.

Key specifics remain missing from the docket language provided: the charging party’s name or affiliation, the identity of the franchise owner or legal entity named, details about the alleged concerted activity, and whether the Regional Office has docketed or served the charge. For St. Peters employees and managers, the filing signals that a formal NLRB inquiry may be under way and that allegations of discipline or discharge tied to concerted activity are being raised.

For workers in the restaurant sector, the case underscores the protections around concerted actions such as discussing pay, schedules, or workplace safety. What happens next is administrative: the Regional Office will determine docketing and service, and the NLRB may open an investigation. Reporters and affected employees should watch the NLRB docket for Case No. 14-CA-379871 and seek confirmation from Region 14 or the parties named on the charge for further developments.