MCPc Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
813 F.3d 475
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- MCPc senior solutions architect Jason Galanter complained at a February 24, 2011 “team-building” lunch to management about engineer understaffing and urged hiring more engineers; two engineers present agreed.
- At that lunch Galanter also mentioned an executive salary figure; CEO Trebilcock later investigated and learned Galanter had global computer access that could view confidential HR files.
- Eight days later Trebilcock confronted Galanter; Galanter gave shifting explanations for the salary comment and implicated two coworkers, who denied providing the information; Trebilcock concluded Galanter had lied and had him escorted out and then terminated.
- NLRB General Counsel charged MCPc with violating § 8(a)(1) by discharging Galanter for protected concerted activity and for maintaining an overbroad confidentiality rule; an ALJ found the discharge unlawful under Burnup & Sims and recommended reinstatement and back pay.
- The NLRB upheld that MCPc’s confidentiality policy was overbroad and that Galanter’s lunch statements were protected concerted activity, but rejected the ALJ’s Burnup & Sims analysis as inapplicable while nevertheless concluding MCPc violated the Act; MCPc petitioned for review and the Board sought enforcement.
- The Third Circuit affirmed that Galanter’s lunch remarks were protected concerted activity but vacated and remanded because the Board applied the wrong legal test to determine whether MCPc’s non‑protected reasons (improper access or dishonesty) would have led to discharge under the Wright Line framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Galanter’s statements at the lunch were "concerted activity" under §7 | Galanter/NLRB: remarks addressed shared workplace condition and sought to induce group action; two coworkers agreed, so conduct was concerted | MCPc: lone comments without preplanning are "mere griping" and not concerted | Court: Held concerted — group forum plus coworker agreement showed intent to further group interests; protected under §7 |
| Whether the confidentiality policy justified discharge for disseminating salary information | NLRB: policy overbroad and could chill protected activity | MCPc: policy legitimate to protect proprietary/confidential info | Court: Held policy overbroad; cannot sustain termination for dissemination |
| Appropriate legal test for employer’s claim it fired employee for unrelated misconduct (accessing confidential files allegedly before lunch) | NLRB/ALJ applied Burnup & Sims (protects misconduct during protected activity) | MCPc: argued it fired for pre‑ and post‑activity misconduct; Wright Line (mixed‑motive) should apply | Court: Held Wright Line is the correct test when alleged misconduct occurred before or after protected activity (not during it) |
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding that discharge was motivated by protected activity (vs. legitimate misconduct or dishonesty) | NLRB/ALJ: MCPc’s proffered reasons were pretextual; discharge unlawful | MCPc: credibility, audit access, shifting explanations, and evidence (website printout) show it would have fired Galanter regardless | Court: Remanded — factual record contains significant evidence suggesting Wright Line analysis might yield a different result; Board must reassess under correct test |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21 (1964) (employee not to be discharged for alleged misconduct arising during protected activity unless misconduct actually occurred)
- NLRB v. City Disposal Sys., Inc., 465 U.S. 822 (1984) (individual employee conduct can be "concerted" where it relates to group interests or seeks to induce group action)
- NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983) (endorsing Wright Line burden‑shifting for mixed‑motive terminations)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (substantial evidence standard requires considering evidence that detracts from the agency’s findings)
- Tri‑State Truck Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 616 F.2d 65 (3d Cir. 1980) (discussing Burnup & Sims and standards for unlawful discharge determinations)
- Wheeling‑Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 618 F.2d 1009 (3d Cir. 1980) (describing limits on §7 protection for unlawful or malicious conduct)