UNITE HERE Local 26, the union representing Fenway Park’s concession workers, has filed an unfair labor practice complaint against Aramark, the food and facilities management company that staffs the iconic ballpark. The complaint follows the union’s ongoing contract negotiations with Aramark, which began after the workers’ previous agreements expired at the end of 2024. According to Local 26, Aramark engaged in multiple unfair labor practices in the months leading up to — and following — a high-profile labor strike in July 2025.
A Historic Strike at Fenway Park
For the first time in 113 years, Fenway Park’s concession workers went on strike from July 25–27 during a Red Sox–Dodgers weekend series. Workers urged fans to refrain from buying food and beverages, drawing attention to concerns about living wages, limits on automation, increased gratuities for premium service roles, and fair scheduling practices.
The union argues that Aramark should provide wages that reflect Boston’s high cost of living — particularly given that Fenway Park is now the most expensive stadium in Major League Baseball to attend. Local 26 states that Aramark’s Fenway workers earn between $15–$18 per hour, while concession workers at many other ballparks earn $20 or more.
The NLRB Complaint: Alleged Violations Under the NLRA
Following the strike, Local 26 filed a formal complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in September 2025. The complaint outlines multiple alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), focusing on Sections 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), and 8(a)(5), which define employer actions that constitute unfair labor practices.
Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(5): Refusal to Bargain
- Refusal to Provide Information: Aramark allegedly refused to provide the necessary information for collective bargaining.
- Unilateral Contract Changes: The union claims that Aramark altered or terminated portions of the collective bargaining agreement without providing the required notice under Section 8(d).
Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(3): Discrimination Based on Union Activity
- Changes to Working Conditions: Workers who participated in the strike were allegedly subjected to changes in employment terms.
- Disciplinary Actions: The union reports that Aramark reduced hours, denied overtime, or suspended employees engaged in protected union activity.
Alleged Violations of Section 8(a)(1): Interference with Protected Rights
- Interrogation: The union claims Aramark questioned or polled employees in a way that could discourage protected activity.
- Coercive Statements: Local 26 alleges that Aramark threatened workers with termination or promised benefits to dissuade them from joining the union.
- Coercive Conduct: The company is also accused of engaging in surveillance-like behavior, including the video recording of employees.
Why This Case Matters
Local 26’s complaint highlights the importance of legal support for workers facing challenges such as wage fairness, retaliation, and employer misconduct. When employees challenge powerful employers, either individually or through their unions, legal advocacy is often the key to ensuring their rights under the NLRA are protected.
This case serves as a reminder that robust legal representation empowers workers to stand up against unfair labor practices — and ensures that workplaces remain compliant, equitable, and accountable. More information on this case can be found here.
Guest Contributor: Sidra Imam is a graduate from Boston College Law School who is working as a law
clerk for Pregent Law. She is passionate about anything related to employment,
business, IP, and entertainment law. In her free time, Sidra likes to write creative
nonfiction, discover new art galleries, and hike the great outdoors.
