## Facts

- Asplundh Tree Expert Company, a U.S.-based tree-trimming contractor, employed line-clearance workers assigned primarily to utility work in Cincinnati, Ohio.
- The Cincinnati-area employees were represented by IBEW Local 171 under a collective bargaining agreement applicable to their domestic utility work.
- After a major ice storm in eastern Canada, Asplundh sent several Cincinnati-area employees, including Dennis Brinson and Eric Crabtree, to Ottawa, Ontario on a temporary assignment to assist with storm-related line clearing and cleanup.
- While in Ottawa, Brinson and Crabtree complained as a group about working conditions (including lodging, meal allowances, and hours) and briefly withheld their labor to support those complaints.
- The NLRB found (for purposes of its order) that Asplundh supervisors threatened Brinson with layoff and later discharged Brinson and Crabtree because of their complaints and brief work stoppage.
- The Board concluded Asplundh violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) and ordered reinstatement and backpay.
- Asplundh petitioned for review, and the NLRB cross-applied for enforcement; the appeal centered on whether the NLRA applies to alleged unfair labor practices occurring in Canada.

## Issues

1. Whether the NLRA applies to alleged unfair labor practices occurring outside the territorial United States, giving the NLRB jurisdiction over employer conduct in Canada affecting U.S. employees on a temporary foreign assignment.
2. Whether any statutory text, structure, or legislative history shows a clear congressional intent for the NLRA to apply extraterritorially.
3. Whether domestic connections (U.S. employer, U.S. bargaining unit, and temporary assignment) permit the NLRB to regulate conduct occurring abroad.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit granted Asplundh’s petition for review, denied the Board’s application for enforcement, and vacated the Board’s order.
- Applying the presumption against extraterritoriality, the court held the NLRA does not reach alleged unfair labor practices occurring outside U.S. territory absent a clear statement from Congress.
- Because the alleged threats and discharges occurred in Ottawa, Canada, the NLRB lacked statutory jurisdiction.
- The court did not reach the merits of whether Asplundh’s conduct violated NLRA §§ 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3).

## Legal Principles

- Federal statutes are presumed to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise.
- The NLRA contains no clear textual or historical indication that Congress intended it to regulate unfair labor practices occurring in foreign countries.
- The relevant location for extraterritorial analysis is the situs of the alleged unfair labor practice, not the employer’s U.S. base or the domestic character of the broader labor relationship.
- Comity and avoidance of conflict with foreign sovereign regulation support limiting the NLRA to domestic territory absent explicit congressional authorization.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that the NLRA does not apply to alleged unfair labor practices occurring in Canada, so the NLRB lacked jurisdiction to order reinstatement and backpay for employees discharged during a temporary foreign assignment, and the Board’s order was vacated without any ruling on the underlying unfair labor practice allegations.


Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 365 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2004)