## Facts

- The Boeing Company designs and manufactures military and commercial aircraft at facilities across the United States, including locations where work is highly sensitive and sometimes classified.
- Boeing maintained a facially neutral “no‑camera rule” addressing camera‑enabled devices on company property.
- The rule allowed employees to possess camera‑enabled devices (such as cell phones) but barred using them to capture images or video unless the employee had a valid business need and an approved camera permit reviewed and approved by security.
- Boeing asserted multiple justifications for the rule, including protection of classified and other sensitive information, protection of proprietary trade secrets, protection of employees’ personal information, and broader facility security concerns tied to risks of espionage and potential terrorist threats.
- The rule did not mention union activity or Section 7 activity, was not issued in response to protected concerted activity, and there was no showing that Boeing applied it to restrict Section 7 rights.
- The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, IFPTE Local 2001 filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that maintaining the rule interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
- An Administrative Law Judge, applying *Lutheran Heritage Village–Livonia*, 343 NLRB 646 (2004), found the rule unlawful under the “reasonably construe” prong because employees could read it as barring protected conduct (such as taking photos to document workplace conditions).
- Boeing filed exceptions, and the case proceeded to the National Labor Relations Board for review.

## Issues

1. Whether Boeing violated NLRA Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining a facially neutral no‑camera rule that could affect employees’ Section 7 activity.
2. Whether the Board should retain *Lutheran Heritage*’s “reasonably construe” standard for evaluating facially neutral rules, or replace it with a standard that weighs potential effects on Section 7 rights against legitimate employer justifications.
3. Under the proper standard, whether Boeing’s no‑camera rule is lawful to maintain.

## Decision

- The Board (3–2) reversed the Administrative Law Judge and dismissed the complaint, holding Boeing’s no‑camera rule lawful to maintain.
- The majority (Chairman Miscimarra and Members Kaplan and Emanuel) overruled *Lutheran Heritage*’s “reasonably construe” prong as the controlling test for facially neutral workplace rules.
- The Board adopted a new two‑factor test for facially neutral rules that may affect Section 7 rights, requiring evaluation of:
  - the nature and extent of the rule’s potential impact on NLRA rights; and
  - the employer’s legitimate justifications for the rule.
- The Board announced guidance that classifies common workplace rules into three categories (generally lawful; case‑by‑case; generally unlawful).
- Applying the new test retroactively, the Board found Boeing’s security and information‑protection justifications outweighed any potential impact on protected concerted activity and treated the no‑camera rule as a Category 1 rule generally lawful to maintain.
- Members Pearce and McFerran dissented.

## Legal Principles

- A workplace rule that explicitly restricts activity protected by NLRA Section 7 is unlawful to maintain.
- For a facially neutral rule that does not explicitly restrict Section 7 activity but could, as reasonably interpreted, potentially affect Section 7 rights, the Board applies a two‑part evaluation:
  - the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights; and
  - the employer’s legitimate justifications for maintaining the rule.
- The “reasonable interpretation” inquiry is made from the viewpoint of an objectively reasonable employee who knows their legal rights and reads workplace rules in the context of everyday work.
- The Board’s framework provides general guidance by grouping rules into categories:
  - Category 1: generally lawful to maintain because the rule does not interfere with Section 7 rights when reasonably interpreted, or because any potential impact is outweighed by legitimate justifications (including Boeing’s no‑camera rule and certain civility rules).
  - Category 2: rules requiring individualized review of context and justifications.
  - Category 3: generally unlawful to maintain because they restrict Section 7 activity and the employer’s justifications do not outweigh the adverse impact (such as rules that bar discussion of wages or benefits).
- Strong employer interests—such as national security concerns and protection of classified, proprietary, or personal information—can justify rules that incidentally limit employee recording, depending on the rule’s likely effect on protected activity.

## Conclusion

In *The Boeing Co.*, 365 N.L.R.B. No. 154 (Dec. 14, 2017), the NLRB replaced *Lutheran Heritage*’s “reasonably construe” approach for facially neutral rules with a balancing standard that weighs a rule’s potential impact on Section 7 rights against the employer’s legitimate justifications, and it held Boeing’s no‑camera rule lawful to maintain because Boeing’s security and information‑protection justifications outweighed any potential chilling effect on protected concerted activity.


{"search_query": [{"q": "\"The Boeing Co.\" 365 NLRB No. 154 citation"}]}{"open": [{"ref_id": "turn0search0"}]}The Boeing Co., 365 N.L.R.B. No. 154 (Dec. 14, 2017)