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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more