Minteq International, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7520

Background

Minteq, whose workforce was unionized under a CBA with Local 150, began in 2012 requiring new hires to sign a Non‑Compete and Confidentiality Agreement (NCCA) without bargaining or notice to the union.
The ~4.5 page NCCA barred employment with competitors for 18 months post‑employment, restricted disclosure of confidential information, required assignment of inventions, and included an "Interference with Relationships" clause and an "At‑Will Employee" clause.
The CBA contained a broad management‑rights clause and a six‑month probationary period during which Minteq could discipline or discharge employees without resort to just‑cause procedures.
The union filed an unfair labor practice charge; the NLRB found Minteq violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA by unilaterally implementing the NCCA and by specific provisions that chilled Section 7 rights.
The Board ordered rescission of the NCCA and other remedies; Minteq petitioned for review.

Issues

Issue	Minteq's Argument	Board/Union's Argument	Held
Whether the NCCA is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining	NCCA is managerial/entrepreneurial and only indirectly affects employment	NCCA directly imposes post‑employment economic costs and restricts employee benefits from inventions, so it is a terms‑and‑conditions matter	NLRB decision upheld: NCCA is a mandatory subject of bargaining
Whether the CBA already covers the NCCA so Minteq had no duty to bargain	Management‑rights clause authorizes unilateral implementation of such policies	Management clause does not manifest agreement to bind employees post‑employment or heirs; it does not expressly cover NCCA topics	Court (de novo contract interp.) held the CBA did not cover the NCCA; duty to bargain remained
Whether the "Interference with Relationships" provision unlawfully restricts Section 7 rights	Clause is a routine customer‑protection provision	Clause could reasonably be read to bar solicitation of customers to support a labor dispute (e.g., boycotts)	Provision independently violates §8(a)(1); cannot be implemented
Whether the "At‑Will Employee" provision unlawfully interferes with CBA just‑cause protections	Clause simply restates at‑will status for new hires	Clause could reasonably be read to undercut the CBA's post‑probation just‑cause protection for employees	Provision independently violates §8(a)(1); cannot be implemented

Key Cases Cited

Local Union No. 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Jewel Tea Co., 381 U.S. 676 (Sup. Ct. 1965) (Board has expertise classifying bargaining subjects)
Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 441 U.S. 488 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (courts defer to Board's reasonably defensible bargaining‑subject determinations)
First Nat'l Maint. Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (distinguishing core entrepreneurial decisions from terms and conditions)
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. NLRB, 404 U.S. 157 (Sup. Ct. 1971) (provisions affecting future economic situation of workers are bargaining subjects)
United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, Local 150‑A v. NLRB, 880 F.2d 1422 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (deferential review standard for Board constructions)
DIRECTV, Inc. v. NLRB, 837 F.3d 25 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (employees may support consumer boycotts in labor disputes)
Adtranz ABB Daimler‑Benz Transp., N.A., Inc. v. NLRB, 253 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (test for whether a rule would reasonably tend to chill Section 7 activity)
Guardsmark, LLC v. NLRB, 475 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (rules not explicitly restricting Section 7 may still be unlawful if reasonably so construed)
Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 47 v. NLRB, 927 F.2d 635 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (courts interpret collective‑bargaining agreements de novo)
Connors v. Link Coal Co., 970 F.2d 902 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (a bargain that resolves an issue removes it from future bargaining)
Mohave Elec. Co‑op., Inc. v. NLRB, 206 F.3d 1183 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (contractual general language cannot be read to encompass conduct unlike specified items)