Boch Imports, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 826 F.3d 558

Boch Imports, Inc. d/b/a Boch Honda in Norwood, MA was found liable for NLRA violations stemming from its 2010 Employee Handbook policies and a revised 2013 dress ban.
The Union filed charges in 2011 alleging the 2010 policies infringed Section 7 rights; the Union’s decertification occurred in September 2011.
Board formal complaint issued December 31, 2012, alleging unlawful 2010 policies; an amended complaint in June 2013 added failures related to repudiation and the 2013 dress ban.
In 2013 Boch published a revised handbook that purported to cure the 2010 policies, but the ALJ and Board found repudiation was insufficient and the 2013 dress ban violated NLRA.
The ALJ and Board held Boch failed to repudiate the 2010 provisions and held the 2013 dress ban unlawful; Board order enforcing liability was entered in 2015; one Board member dissented on repudiation and pins ban.
Boch petitioned for review; the First Circuit denied Boch’s petition and granted enforcement of the Board’s order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Boch repudiated the 2010 policies	Boch argues it repudiated by revising the handbook and notifying employees.	Board held repudiation was insufficient due to lack of explicit notice and assurances.	Board properly found lack of effective repudiation.
Whether the 2013 dress ban violated NLRA because of lack of special circumstances	Boch contends the dress ban is justified by its public image and safety concerns.	Board found no tailored, special circumstances justifying the broad ban.	Dress ban violation upheld; not narrowly tailored to safety/image needs.
Application of repudiation precedents (Passavant, Lily, etc.)	Boch contends precedents were misapplied, and cooperation should be considered.	Board reasonably applied precedents to facts; cooperation does not excuse repudiation failure.	Board’s repudiation rulings within its discretionary precedents.
Whether the Board reasonably distinguished Starwood and other precedents	Boch argues Board misapplied Starwood; the policy was distinguishable.	Board reasonably distinguished Starwood given the scope and public-facing staff.	Board’s Starwood distinction and application were reasonable.

Passavant Mem’l Area Hosp., 237 NLRB 138 (1978) (repudiation requires timely, unambiguous notice with assurances)
Lily Transport., Corp. & Robert Suchar, 362 NLRB No. 54 (2015) (repudiation precedents apply to unlawful policies)
Rivers Bend Health & Rehab. Serv., 350 NLRB No. 16 (2007) (repudiation assessment varies with violation nature)
Broyhill Co., 260 NLRB 183 (1982) (repudiation context depends on steps taken to disavow)
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 348 NLRB No. 24 (2006) (special circumstances may justify dress bans tailored to image/safety)
Meijer, Inc., 130 F.3d 1209 (6th Cir. 1997) (treatment of dress code special-circumstances as business judgment)
Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1952) (presumption to wear insignia; employer must show special circumstances)
Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483 (1978) (balance of interests; appearance rules; presumptions in solicitation vs. insignia)
So. New England Tel. Co. v. NLRB, 793 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (context for reasonable-belief considerations in apparel cases)