Skip to main content

NLRB: Smile for the Camera! NLRB Comes Down on Two of Boeing's Photography Policies


The Boeing Company - NLRB


Facts:  There are two relevant factual situations upon which this decision turns.  The first:  In 2012, union employees took part in peaceful protests at several Boeing's facilities by wearing red shirts on Wednesdays and engaging in peaceful walks or marches to support the upcoming contract negotiations.  Boeing photographed hundreds of these employees who participated in the marches.

The second:  Boeing had in place a policy in which employees were limited to the use of camera devices in the workplace.  If the employees wanted to use a camera device, they were required to show a valid business justification, had to get prior authorization, etc).

These actions by Boeing were complained of as unfair labor violations of the National Labor Relations Act (Act).

Holding:  The NLRB Administrative Law Judge held that Boeing's photographing the employees that marched amounted to a violation of the Act.  While Boeing argued that photographing the marches was necessary to monitor the situation and because the employees disrupted production, the NLRB Judge disagreed and held that Boeing's photography was unlawful "surveillance."  In part, the Judge noted that the marches were peaceful and no employees had been disciplined by Boeing for involvement in the marches.

As for Boeing's limitations on its employees' rights to use camera devices at work, the Judge rejected Boeing's argument that these limitations were needed to protect confidential and proprietary production processes.  Instead, the Judge held that Boeing's limitations "chilled" employee rights under the Act.  Since Boeing permitted non-employees to take tours of its facilities and take photographs without restrictions, the limitation on its employees was over broad. 

Unsurprisingly, Boeing has indicated they intend to appeal this decision to the full NLRB. 

Date:  May 15, 2014

Opinion:  http://www.btlaborrelations.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ALJ-Opinion.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more