## Facts

- Timekeeping Systems, Inc. was a small, nonunion manufacturer of data-collection equipment.
- Larry Leinweber worked for the company as a software engineer.
- The company’s chief operating officer circulated an email to employees seeking feedback on proposed changes to the vacation policy and characterized the proposal as increasing annual time off.
- Leinweber emailed management disputing that characterization, asserting the proposal did not increase time off and reduced flexibility; he later sent a correction to a minor calculation error.
- After another employee praised the proposal in an email, Leinweber replied with renewed criticism and then sent a longer email to management and all employees criticizing the proposal in a provocative and sarcastic tone.
- Management viewed the tone and company-wide distribution as inappropriate and insubordinate and terminated Leinweber.
- Leinweber filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging discharge for protected concerted activity concerning terms and conditions of employment, in violation of NLRA § 8(a)(1).
- An administrative law judge found a violation, and the employer filed exceptions to the NLRB.

## Issues

1. Whether Leinweber’s emails criticizing proposed vacation-policy changes constituted protected concerted activity under NLRA § 7.
2. Whether the content, tone, or broad distribution of the emails was sufficiently abusive or insubordinate to cause otherwise protected activity to lose NLRA protection.
3. Whether the discharge interfered with, restrained, or coerced employees in the exercise of § 7 rights in violation of NLRA § 8(a)(1).

## Decision

- The NLRB affirmed the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Leinweber’s communications addressed vacation benefits, a term and condition of employment, and were made for employees’ mutual aid or protection.
- The Board held the activity remained protected despite a provocative or sarcastic tone and despite using a company-wide email distribution.
- The Board found Timekeeping Systems, Inc. violated NLRA § 8(a)(1) by discharging Leinweber because of his protected concerted activity.
- The Board ordered standard remedial relief associated with unlawful discharge findings (including reinstatement and backpay).

## Legal Principles

- Employee communications about wages, hours, benefits, and related workplace policies generally fall within § 7 protection when undertaken for mutual aid or protection.
- Conduct by a single employee may be “concerted” when it seeks to initiate, induce, or prepare for group action, or when it is directed to group concerns rather than a purely personal complaint.
- Otherwise protected activity is not stripped of protection solely because it is sharply critical or sarcastic; loss of protection requires misconduct sufficiently egregious under Board standards assessing the setting, subject, nature of the outburst, and related circumstances.
- An employer violates NLRA § 8(a)(1) when it discharges an employee because of protected concerted activity, thereby tending to interfere with employees’ exercise of § 7 rights.

## Conclusion

The NLRB held that an employee’s critical, company-wide email disputing management’s claims about a proposed vacation policy was protected concerted activity, and that the employee did not lose NLRA protection merely due to a provocative tone or broad distribution; terminating him for that conduct violated § 8(a)(1).


Timekeeping Sys., Inc., 323 N.L.R.B. 244 (1997)