Hyundai America Shipping Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
420 U.S. App. D.C. 64
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- Sandra McCullough, a former Hyundai employee, charged that Hyundai fired her for engaging in protected, concerted activity under § 7 of the NLRA; the NLRB General Counsel filed a complaint also challenging five handbook rules as § 8(a)(1) violations.
- The ALJ found Hyundai would have fired McCullough regardless, eliminating the discharge remedy issue; the ALJ nonetheless found all five rules unlawful and the Board affirmed in part.
- The Board panel was later confirmed as properly appointed under Noel Canning; the D.C. Circuit proceeded to review the Board’s invalidation of five handbook rules.
- The court applied the Drug Plastics test to determine whether the complaint’s allegations about each rule were sufficiently related to the charge so the Board had jurisdiction.
- Four rules were found to be within the complaint’s scope: (1) investigative confidentiality rule; (2) electronic communications rule; (3) working hours rule; and (4) complaint-to-supervisor provision. The personnel-file rule lacked the required nexus and was beyond the Board’s jurisdiction.
- The court enforced the Board’s invalidation of three rules (investigative confidentiality, electronic communications, working hours), and reversed as to the complaint provision and the personnel-file rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over handbook-rule claims | GC: complaint alleging McCullough was fired for violating particular rules brings those rule claims within the charge | Hyundai: Board lacked jurisdiction for rules not alleged to cause the discharge | Four rules were within scope under Drug Plastics; the personnel-file rule was not and Board lacked jurisdiction over it |
| Investigative confidentiality rule — facial overbreadth | GC: blanket confidentiality would reasonably chill § 7 discussions and is not justified | Hyundai: confidentiality is justified by compliance with EEOC/state guidance and investigation integrity | Rule is overbroad; invalidated because Hyundai didn’t show justification for a blanket ban |
| Electronic communications rule — scope of prohibition | GC: rule could be read to bar sharing terms and conditions of employment via company systems | Hyundai: rule cannot lawfully be read to limit § 7 communications; it’s about authorized disclosures only | Court defers to Board (Cintas over Community Hospitals) and invalidates the rule |
| Working hours & complaint-to-supervisor provisions — whether handbook prohibits § 7 activity | GC: working-hours rule prohibits union activity during shift; complaint provision discourages talking to coworkers about grievances | Hyundai: working-hours rule concerns only active work time; complaint provision is exhortatory and non-mandatory | Working-hours rule invalid (covers breaks within shift); complaint provision upheld as reasonable and not a § 7 ban |
Key Cases Cited
- Drug Plastics & Glass Co. v. NLRB, 44 F.3d 1017 (D.C. Cir.) (jurisdictional test: complaint allegations must be closely related to charge)
- Cintas Corp. v. NLRB, 482 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Board may invalidate overly broad confidentiality and communications policies)
- Community Hospitals of Cent. Cal. v. NLRB, 335 F.3d 1079 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (policy limited to confidential information is less likely to chill § 7 rights)
- Guardsmark, LLC v. NLRB, 475 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (mandatory anti-complaint rules can be invalidated when they bar § 7 communications)