The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 155 (2017)

Boeing had a policy restricting the use of camera-enabled devices such as cell phones on its property. Boeing's "no-camera" rule does not explicitly restrict activity protected by Section 7 of the NLRA, it was not adopted in response to NLRA-protected activity, and it has not been applied to restrict such activity. Nevertheless, applying prong one of the test set forth inLutheran Heritage, the NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Boeing's maintenance of this rule violated the NLRA. The ALJ reasoned that employees "would reasonably construe" the rule to prohibit Section 7 activity, and so it was deemed to be in violation of the Act. Boeing appealed.

The Board ruled that it would no longer find unlawful the mere maintenance of facially neutral employment policies, work rules and handbook provisions based on a single inquiry, which made legality turn on whether an employee "would reasonably construe" a rule to prohibit some type of potential Section 7 activity that might (or might not) occur in the future.The Board ruled that the Lutheran Heritage standard was inadequate, and adopted a new rule.

2. What is the new rule or standard announced in this decision? To which situations does it apply? How does the new rule differ from the previous rule (the "Lutheran Heritagestandard")?