Argued January 27, 2025 Decided April 22, 2025

No. 24-1003 ALPHABET WORKERS UNION-COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 9009, PETITIONER

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS U.S. CORPORATION AND GOOGLE LLC, INTERVENORS

Consolidated with 24-1014, 24-1016, 24-1021, 24-1022

On Petitions for Review and Cross-Applications for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board

Karla M. Campbell argued the cause for petitioner Alphabet Workers Union-Communication Workers of America, Local 9009. With her on the briefs was Michael C. Iadevaia. 2

Matthew J. Silveira argued the cause for petitioners Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation and Google LLC. With him on the briefs were John Henry Thompson, Cameron W. Fox, and Carlos Torrejon.

Jordan L. Von Bokern, Pratik A. Shah, James C. Crowley, and Stephanie Martz were on the brief for amici curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. in support of petitioners.

Joel A. Heller, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Jennifer A. Abruzzo, General Counsel, Ruth E. Burdick, Deputy Associate General Counsel, David Habenstreit, Assistant General Counsel, and Elizabeth A. Heaney, Supervisory Attorney.

Matthew J. Silveira, John Henry Thompson, Cameron W. Fox, and Carlos Torrejon were on the brief for intervenors Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation and Google LLC in support of respondent.

Karla M. Campbell and Michael C. Iadevaia were on the brief for intervenor Alphabet Workers Union-Communication Workers of America, Local 9009 in support of respondent.

Before: HENDERSON, MILLETT and WALKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: This case arises from a dispute about the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or Board) rule governing when one entity is 3 considered a joint employer of another entity’s employees. Applying its rule, the Board determined that Google was a joint employer of Cognizant employees who worked on Google’s YouTube Music platform and ordered both companies to bargain with the employees’ union, the Alphabet Workers Union–Communication Workers of America, Local 9009 (AWU or the Union).

To challenge that decision, Google and Cognizant refused to bargain, and the NLRB concluded that the employers’ refusal violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act). The employers petitioned for review, arguing that they were not joint employers. However, the contract under which the bargaining unit employees provided services to Google expired a month later, rendering moot Google’s and Cognizant’s petitions and the Board’s cross-applications for enforcement.

The Union also petitioned for review, contending that the NLRB’s remedies did not go far enough. By not moving for reconsideration below, however, the Union fell short of the Act’s jurisdictional exhaustion requirement regarding its challenge to the Board’s decision to sever for further consideration a compensatory remedy that would require overruling its precedent. The Union’s requests for additional prospective remedies are moot because the contract ended. The NLRB did not abuse its discretion by otherwise ordering only the customary remedies.

Accordingly, we dismiss Google’s and Cognizant’s petitions and the Board’s cross-applications as moot and we vacate the order below. Further, we dismiss as jurisdictionally barred the part of AWU’s petition seeking review of the NLRB’s decision to sever the issue of a make-whole remedy for employees and dismiss as moot those parts of AWU’s