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.

1.What were the legal issues in this case? What did the NLRB decide?