The Boeing Company

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

May 15, 2014

19-CA-090932 (N.L.R.B. May. 15, 2014)

JD(SF)–23–14
Everrett, WA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES, SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
THE BOEING COMPANY
and Cases 19–CA–090932
19–CA–090948
19–CA–095926
SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING EMPLOYEES IN
AEROSPACE, IFPTE LOCAL 2001
Irene Hartzell Botero, counsel,
for the General Counsel.
Charles N. Eberhardt, Esq. (Perkins, Coie LLP),
for the Respondent Company.
Thomas B. Buescher, Esq. (Buescher,
Goldhammer, Kelman & Perera, P.C.), for the Union.
DECISION
GERALD M. ETCHINGHAM, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in
Seattle, Washington, from September 24 – 26, 2013. Charging Party, The Society of
Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace, IFPTE Local 2001 (Engineers’ Union,
SPEEA, or Union) filed the charges and amended charges in these three consolidated cases
beginning on October 9, 2012,1 and at various times through April 12, 2013.2

1 All dates are in 2012 unless otherwise indicated.
2 A portion of this consolidated action was severed in a late August 2013 conference call
with the parties’ counsel and administrative law judge prior to hearing and confirmed at the
beginning of hearing such that for this decision pars. 7(b), 8, 11, and 13 of the consolidated
complaint are severed and litigated subsequently at a later hearing. Tr. at pp. 5–8; General
Counsel Exhibit (GC Exh. ) 1(v). For ease of reference, testimonial evidence cited here will be
referred to as “Tr.” (Transcript) followed by the page number(s).
JD(SF)–23–14
The General Counsel issued the consolidated complaint and notice of hearing on
April 29, 2013.3
The complaint alleges that Respondent, The Boeing Company (Respondent/Employer),5
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA/the Act) when on four
separate dates it engaged in surveillance or created an impression of surveillance and
photographed Engineers’ Union employees during a Union march4 or while participating in
protected concerted activities at Respondent’s facilities in Everett and Renton, Washington, and
Portland, Oregon. The complaint also alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the 10
Act when it promulgated and maintained Procedure PRO 2783 (the Rule) which states that use
of employees’ personal camera-enabled devices “to capture images or video is prohibited
without a valid business need and an approved Camera Permit that has been reviewed and
approved by Security.” Respondent denies that it has violated the Act in any way.
15

3 Fn. 2, at p. 3 of Respondent’s closing brief (R. Br.) refers to Respondent’s earlier motion
to dismiss based on allegations that the complaint in this case “was unauthorized and void”
because the prior Acting General Counsel lacked authority to delegate the issuance of the
complaint in this case to the Regional Director. I find no merit in the Respondent’s contention
that the Acting General Counsel lacked the authority to prosecute this case. The Acting General
Counsel (AGC) was properly appointed under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. §
3345 and not pursuant to Sec. 3(d) of the Act. See Muffley v. Massey Energy Co., 547 F.Supp.
2d 536, 542–543 (S.D.W.Va. 2008), affd. 570 F.3d 534 (4th Cir. 2009) (upholding
authorization of a 10(j) injunction proceeding by Acting General Counsel designated pursuant
to the Vacancies Act). See The Ardit Co., 360 NLRB No. 15 (2013). In addition, the motion to
dismiss was denied because at the time of hearing the AGC was still actively considering an
appeal of the [8/13 D.Ct. Order]” As such, I find that the 8/13 D.Ct. Order is not final and
currently has no relevance to this administrative adjudication of the complaint or the instant
motion. Moreover, I further find that Respondent’s argument that the Board lacks a
constitutionally valid quorum is inapplicable to this case because this question about the
Board’s validity remains in litigation, and pending a definitive resolution, the Board is charged
to fulfill its responsibilities under the Act. See Bloomingdale’s Inc., 359 NLRB No. 113
(2013)(Board rejects same argument for the same reasons.). More importantly, as pointed out
by the AGC, I further find that the AGC’s authority to issue and prosecute a complaint is
unaffected by any issue concerning the composition of the Board. See e.g. NLRB v. Food
Workers Union, 484 U.S. 112, 126–128 (1987); NLRB v. FLRA, 613 F.3d 275, 278 (D.C. Cir.
2010)).
4 The terms solidarity walk(s) and mass march(es) are used interchangeably in this decision
and mean the same thing. In this case, they are basically a group of Respondent employees
belonging to the Engineers’ Union who got together to walk and march through various areas
on or near Respondent’s facilities during contract negotiations for a new collective-bargaining
agreement.
JD(SF)–23–14
3
On the entire record5, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the posthearing briefs6 filed by the General Counsel, Respondent, and the
Engineers’ Union, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT5
I. JURISDICTION
The parties admit and I find that Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters in Chicago, Illinois, who manufactures and produces military and commercial 10
aircraft at various facilities throughout the United States, including Everett and Renton,
Washington, and Portland, Oregon. The parties further admit and I further find that during the
preceding 12 months of the relevant dates of the various charges in this case, Respondent
derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000 in conducting its business operations and during
the same time periods while also conducting its business operations, it both sold and shipped 15
from, and purchased and received at, the facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
and from points outside the State of Washington.
I further find and it is also admitted that Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 20
It is also admitted, and I so find, that the Engineers’ Union is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act at all relevant times leading to this proceeding.
25
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. OVERVIEW OF RESPONDENT’S OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES IN THE
PACIFIC NORTHWEST
30
1. Respondent
Respondent operates a division of its company in the States of Washington and Oregon
known as the Commercial Airplanes Division (CAD) which designs and builds airplanes for
the commercial passenger and freight market and produces military derivatives of commercial 35
aircraft for the U.S. Government. This case involves Respondent’s CAD operations at its
facilities in Everett and Renton, Washington and Portland, Oregon where Respondent primarily
performs commercial airplane work, but it also performs military systems and aircraft work,

5 I hereby correct the transcript as follows: Tr. 608, line 16: “I will offer it as substantive evidence”
should be “I will not offer it as substantive evidence.”; Tr. 659, line 9: “March” should be “march”; Tr.
661, line 17: “formed” should be “informed.”
6 Documentary evidence is referred to either as “GC Exh.” for a General Counsel exhibit, or
“R Exh.” for a Respondent exhibit. References to post-trial briefs shall be either “GC Br.”, “R
Br.”, or “CP Br.” followed by the page numbers. Citing to specific evidence in the record is for
emphasis and there may be additional evidence in the record that supports a finding of fact or
conclusion of law.
JD(SF)–23–14
4
including some classified work which is conducted in marked areas or behind closed doors that
require further security clearance not involved in this case.
2. Two separate Unions - Engineers’ Union and Machinists’ Union5
The Engineers’ Union represents salaried professional (engineering) and technical
employees in Washington and Oregon. These units comprise approximately 24,000 Respondent
employees, most of who work in the Puget Sound region in Washington, with the highest
concentration at the Everett facility. Approximately 200 of Engineers’ Union’s members work 10
at Respondent’s Portland facility.
Respondent and Engineers’ Union have a long and stable collective-bargaining history
dating back to 1946 for the professional unit and 1972 for the technical unit. In the fall of 2012,
the parties were negotiating successor labor contracts which were signed in the first half of 15
2013, retroactive to October 2012. Many of the Engineers’ Union employees at Respondent are
white collar workers with extensive secondary education who work primarily in office
environments away from the factory and production floor though many of them walk the
factory floor to and from their jobs. Prior to August 2012, the Engineer’s Union had not
engaged in any marches inside Respondent’s facilities during contract negotiations.20
Respondent’s other larger union, the International Association of Machinists (the
Machinists’ Union) comprise the vast majority of Respondent’s hourly-wage employees in the
factory and production floor areas in Washington and Oregon and they perform blue collar
production and maintenance work, including machining, assembly, tooling, material support, 25
and parts movement, including forklift and crane operation. Unlike the Engineer’s Union, for
many years prior to 2012, the Mechanic’s Union held lunchtime marches with staggered
lunches. (Tr. 40–41, 53, 57.) Respondent admits to never trying to stop the Machinist marches.
(Tr. 708.)
30
As a result of these Machinists’ Union marches, Respondent created a document in
2008 which it used to train its managers and security guards regarding procedures to follow
during workplace marches (the March Rule). (Tr. 34–35, 60; GC Exh. 27.) This included
security guards providing bicycle or patrol car escorts to Machinists’ marchers over the years
before 2012 at the front and back of each march.7 The lead guard would stop vehicles and 35
forklifts and clear transportation aisles along the march route, and the guard in the back of the
march would prevent vehicles from approaching or passing the marchers from behind. The
Machinists’ Union never questioned or objected to Respondent’s developed its own practices or
rules for Machinists’ Union marches.
40
Respondent’s security personnel also prepare and file written Uniformed Security
Incident Reports (USIR’s) when they respond to various incidents on Respondent property that
affect people, buildings, equipment, safety, or accidents. These reports evolved over time as

7 The Machinists’ Union did not conduct mass marches in 2012. R. Br. at 9.
JD(SF)–23–14
5
they also summarize pertinent details of the incident and began to include photographs taken
of individuals, equipment, or property related to the incident.8
No violence, rioting or safety issues were recorded nor did security record any incidents
of Machinists’ Union employees disrupting production during a march. (Tr. 61–62.) What 5
further evolved from the Machinists’ marches and the March Rule was that the security guards
routinely completed and filed USIR’s documenting the time, location, march participants,
route, and any notable interactions of each Machinist march. In addition, Respondent’s
security guards’ practice during the Machinists’ marches was to provide an escort in the front
and rear of the march and to stop vehicular traffic along the route. (Tr. 442, 501.) No evidence 10
was presented that the Machinists’ Union ever objected to the taking of photos by Respondent’s
security personnel documenting the Machinists’ marches.
3. Respondent’s secured facilities
15
Access to Respondent’s facilities is controlled through fences and security guards and
authorized personnel use security badges to gain access to various parts of the facilities through
pedestrian gates. Once access is gained to the general factory areas, additional stricter levels of
security are required to gain further access within the facilities to classified areas designated by
additional locked doors or cordoned-off areas marked as top secret or containing classified 20
information.9
In addition to personnel, vehicles must also pass through gates staffed at Respondent’s
facilities by uniformed security guards. More than protecting personnel and property by
staffing perimeter gates, Respondent’s security guards also support special events, perform 25
traffic control, enforce vehicle and pedestrian safety rules, respond to incidents and medical
emergencies, perform first aid, supply security escorts, and help employees with car unlocks,
jumpstarting dead batteries, and computer cable unlocks.
At Respondent’s factories, a constant stream of truck, forklift, and other vehicle and 30
equipment traffic inside and around these large factory buildings throughout the workday
sometimes puts employees at risk. Respondent has developed and published various specialized
safety rules to address dangers unique to the factory environment, including rules for pedestrian
walkways, transportation aisles, interactions between pedestrians and vehicles inside the
factory, overhead-door safety, over-head crane safety, and eye safety. Respondent’s employees 35
do not always follow these safety rules yet in this case no evidence was presented that any
Engineers’ Union employee was cited or disciplined by Respondent for any alleged safety
violation during the last half of 2012.

8 This is in contrast to Respondent’s earlier instructions to its security personnel not to
photograph or record “peaceful” picketing. See GC Exh. 31 at 4. The Machinists’ marches also
resulted in further instruction that Respondent’s security personnel photograph and document
“behavior which is disruptive or unsafe.” Id.
9 None of the facts in this case involve allegations that any Engineers’ Union members tried
to march or gain access to top secret or classified areas at Respondent’s facilities anytime in
late 2012.
JD(SF)–23–14
6
B. RESPONDENT’S CHALLENGED RULES
1. The revised March Rule
In late summer, early fall 2012, Engineers’ Union employees began to wear red union 5
shirts on Wednesdays and engage in peaceful solidarity walks or marches in and around
Respondent’s facilities in Everett and Renton, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, to show their
support for the Union during contract negotiations. Prior to late summer 2012, there had been
no marches at Respondent’s facilities by the Engineers’ Union. (Tr. 36, 56, 664.) The decision
to photograph was made by Respondent before any of the Engineers’ Union marches in the fall 10
of 2012. (Tr. 35–36; GC Exh. 27.)10
Respondent updated the March Rule in August 2012 and presented it to its managers
and security guards in September for training in connection with the Engineers’ Union contract
negotiations taking place at that time. (Tr. 35–36,469, 479, 536; GC Exhs. 27, 31 and 32.) 15
Respondent’s express instructions to its security guards before the Engineers’ Union marches
took place was to “[o]penly communicate with picketing employees when a safety hazard
exists.” GC Exh. 32 at 4.) The 2008 security officer etiquette training, however, instructed
security guards not to record peaceful picket line conduct. (GC Exh. 31.) Respondent’s
directive to its guards not to record peaceful picket line conduct was removed from the security 20
officer etiquette training document by September 2012 and the Engineers’ Union marches. (GC
Exh. 32.)
Also as of August 2012, Respondent’s managers were required by the March Rule to
notify security immediately for videotape support if a workplace march occurred. (GC Exh. 27 25
at 4.) The March Rule also requires managers to notify employees of the potential for
corrective action and pay impact for unacceptable conduct during mass marches. (GC Exh. 27
at 5.) Respondent completed USIR’s and photographed and videotaped the Engineers’ Union
members during these walks in the Everett factory facility on September 19 and December 12,
at the Portland 85–001 Building on October 3, and outside the Renton plant near the D-9 gate 30
on September 26, 2012 as referred to below in more detail. (Tr. 45–48, 51, 453, 529–530, and
663; GC Exhs. 24, 25, 29(b), 30, 33–35.)
The lunchtime walks were peaceful and no Engineers’ Union member was disciplined
for their conduct during any of these four walks. (Tr. 470, 718, and 721; GC Exh. 29(b); GC 35
Exh. 33.) Respondent’s admitted custom and practice is not to discipline any groups of
employees or march participants who may violate safety rules during marches such as failing to
wear safety glasses in the factory or walking briefly outside the pedestrian walkway. (Tr. 527–
528, 722.)
40
(a) The Everett, WA facility

10 Respondent’s security guards’ training provides that if a march occurs management is
supposed to notify security “immediately for video-tape support . . . .” GC Exh. 27 at 4. This
training was created in 2008 in anticipation of Machinists’ Union marches. Tr. 40.
JD(SF)–23–14
7
Respondent’s Everett facility is where the Engineers’ Union conducted its September
19 and December 12 lunchtime red-shirt walks. The walks took place on the factory floor
where there are no classified areas. (Tr. 73–74, 93, 151–153, 430–431, 437–438: GC Exhs. 2–
3.)
5
The Everett factory building is one of the largest enclosed buildings in the world
estimated to measure six football fields in total volume. (Tr. 216, 218.) It is approximately six
or seven stories high with offices above the factory floor at certain locations. (Tr. 74, 216.) The
factory building houses the main manufacturing areas for Respondent’s airplane models 747,
767, 777, and 787. (Tr. 567; GC Exh. 3.11 ) Production of the airplanes moves from north to 10
south, with all but the 767 model moving out of the south bay doors on completion. (Tr. 568.)
Approximately 42,000 employees worked at the Everett facility in 2012 and of these,
about 19,500 were Machinists’ employees and about 12,000 were Engineers’ Union employees.
(Tr. 703, 715.) Engineers’ Union members worked on the factory floor in cubicles with 15
Machinists, in closed offices and elsewhere and approximately 1,800 Engineers’ Union
members working in the entire factory building on three shifts with 1,200 of them on first shift.
(Tr. 200, 716.) Of the 1,800 Engineers Union members working in the factory building, at least
300 worked directly on the factory floor in cubicles and 200 of those worked the first shift. (Tr.
92, 127, 633–634, 704.) Approximately 150-300 Engineers’ Union members walked at lunch 20
on September 19 and December 12, 2012.
A main transportation aisle, which is referred to by employees as “main street” runs east
to west through the factory building. (GC Exh. 3.) Forklifts and other vehicles use the
transportation aisles to move equipment and parts around the factory. Forklift traffic is 25
intermittent and employees are trained to be aware of this traffic as they move around the
factory. (Tr. 203.) A pedestrian aisle parallels the main aisle on the north side. (Tr. 105, 207–
208; GC Exh. 3.) Another major transportation aisle paralleled by a pedestrian aisle on the west
side runs north to south in the 40–25 factory building through the model 777 final assembly
line. (Tr. 217–218; GC Exh. 3. ) There are a number of pedestrian aisles running throughout the 30
factory that are stand-alone aisles which do not parallel transportation aisles and there are
pedestrian tunnels running under the factory floor for employees to use though they do not
always connect with each other. (Tr. 188, 201, 216, 218.) There are crosswalks at most
intersections throughout the factory with accompanying stop signs for both pedestrians and
vehicles. (Tr. 296; GC Exh. 3.) 35
All Respondent employees whose jobs take them to the factory floor are required to
take an annual safety course on factory operations. (Tr. 236.) The course instructs employees
regarding the guidelines to follow in the event of an overhead crane move—to stop, look up, to
watch and to stay out of the area of the crane envelope, and, if possible, to stand under a 40

11 GC Exh. 3 is a to-scale schematic of the Everett facility, which shows the different
airplane production lines and major transportation corridors. It also shows the alpha-numeric
column grid used to identify locations and features within the factory. Columns on the east-
west axis are identified by letters from A (at the west extreme) to R (at the east extreme) of the
40–26 building. Columns on the north-south axis are identified by numerals from 1 (at the
south wall) to 17 (to the north).
JD(SF)–23–14
8
structure. (Tr. 236, 297.) During crane moves, large signs measuring 8–10 feet long and about 4
feet high are moved by the crane crew near the crane move area to alert employees that there is
an impending move. (Tr. 156, 297–298; GC Exh. 22.) The crane crew wears orange and white
helmets and gathers and arranges the crane in position, the crane operator sounds the crane
horn, cords are lowered down from the crane, the crane horn usually goes off again and 5
indicator lights start flashing. (Tr. 237.) Employees are not notified in advance that there is
going to be a crane move, and they simply follow the training they have received when
encountering workers about to begin to move and operate the crane. (Tr. 238–239.)
Employees and managers, however, frequently walk in the transportation aisles of the 10
factory building and not the adjacent pedestrian lane during shift changes which occur
approximately three times per day, during break times, during emergency evacuations, when
parts or equipment block the pedestrian lanes, and when employees are cutting across the
factory taking the shortest route between two points. (Tr. 130, 137–139, 188, 241242, 246–247,
641; GC Exhs. 1719.) There are often hundreds of employees in the transportation lane during 15
shift breaks and changes. (Tr. 243.) Employees have not observed security guards taking photos
of workers in the transportation aisles under these circumstances. (Tr. 189, 302–3-03.)
Non-material handling pedestrians are often in the apron area outside the factory
building. (Tr. 174.) It is the normal custom and practice for employees at Respondent to 20
regularly walk through large overhead bay doors in the factory as well as overhead doors
inserted within the bay doors, despite guidelines advising employees not to do so. (Tr. 172–
173, 175, 244, 254–255.) Respondent does not discipline employees for disregarding this safety
guideline. (Tr. 256, 473–474.) Nonetheless, the overhead doors have a switch that pedestrians
can flip to keep the doors locked open. (Tr. 623, 644–645.) Security guards do not normally 25
take photos of employees walking through overhead doors, or of employees who are walking
through the factory without their safety glasses on, or generally at any other time other than
during Engineers’ Union member marches or walks. (Tr. 176, 240, 246, 291.)
(i) The September 19 Engineers’ Union March at the Everett Plant30
On September 19, approximately 150–300 Engineers’ Union employees gathered for
approximately 10 minutes near the in-house Tully’s Coffee Shop (Tully’s) location within the
factory building during their lunch hour around 11 a.m. for their first Everett march wearing
their red Union shirts and carrying various signs which read, “No nerds No birds,” “We 35
delivered,” “We’re Boeing,” “Not my pension,” and “I’m voting No.” (Tr. 73, 78–79, 105,
119–120, 124, 183, 187, 214; GC Exh. 4, GC Exh. 5.)
The described purpose of this red-shirt walk was to march around the factory to show
solidarity among Engineers’ Union members during their contract negotiations with the 40
Respondent. (Tr. 72–73, 118, 183, 213–214.) Engineers’ Union employee Suzanne Kamiya
recognized the walk participants as mostly comprised of those working in the factory building.
(Tr. 95, 200.) The employees were chatting with each other and chanting slogans, such as “I’m
voting No.” (Tr. 79, 151.)
45
Respondent was advised of the march prior to its occurrence and had dispatched guards
Jeffery J. Catalini (Catalini) and Dave Lopez (Lopez) for bike patrol duty along the walk. (Tr.
JD(SF)–23–14
9
503.) Security guard Kelly Hess (Hess), Catalini’s and Lopez’ supervisor, was also present
during the walk. (Tr., 282, 445, 483.) These guards photographed Engineers’ Union members
who were gathering mainly along the pedestrian aisles and crosswalks located at the
intersection closest to the Tully’s. (Tr. 79-80, 107, 234–235, 482; GC Exh. 3.) As per the
guards, the purpose of their photographing the walk was to show the scope of the crowd size 5
for the first Engineers’ Union walk at the facility. (Tr. 451, 473.) Catalini testified that before
the September 19 march he and Lopez were instructed by Hess to “[d]ocument the scope and
size of the crowd, any intimidating factors.” (Tr. 480, 538.) These guards did not speak with or
say anything to the employees at the time other than to ask them what their planned route was.
(Tr. 235, 470.) 10
While gathered at Tully’s, workers not participating in the walk were able to navigate
down the transportation aisles riding tricycles with cargo boxes. (Tr. 494; GC Exh. 29(b), photo
1.) If vehicles could not get through the Tully’s intersection, it was because security guards
prevented them from passing. (Tr. 492.) After gathering for approximately 10–15 minutes by 15
the Tully’s, employees walked south down the H transportation aisle, using the pedestrian
walkway that paralleled it as much as possible. (Tr. 81–82, 106, 108, 110, 262; GC Exh. 3.)
The employees in the red-shirt walk then continued out of the factory building onto the
apron, moved east on the apron, re-entered the factory at the 40–25 building, proceeded north 20
on the pedestrian aisle located in the middle of the 777 final assembly line, up to the main
transportation aisle, and turned west on the pedestrian aisle paralleling the main transportation
aisle back to Tully’s. (Tr. 85–86, 91, 110, 185; GC Exh. 3; GC Exh. 29(b).)
Engineers’ Union members Suzanne Kamiya and Scott Steffen convincingly testified 25
that as walkers left Tully’s and began the walk, a security guard photographed the marchers
while on a bicycle from about 20-50 feet away, blocked their path and continued to take photos
of the walkers as they approached him, forcing them to walk around him on their way down the
H aisle. (Tr. 83–84, 109; GC Exh. 3.) Guard Catalini, who was on a bicycle during the march,
admitted he took photographs of walk participants when they entered the 40–24 production 30
area. Photo 7 of GC Exh. 29(b), taken by Catalini, documents the scene as testified by Kamiya,
Steffen, and Catalini. (Tr. 451, 472; GC Exh. 29(b).)
Engineers’ Union employee Scott Peters observed a guard on a bicycle photographing
employees while they were out on the apron for a few minutes. (Tr. 187, 469.) Peters credibly 35
noted that he had never previously seen a Respondent guard take photos of employees during
the course of his 23-year employment with Respondent. (Tr. 178, 191.) Catalini admitted
taking photographs of employees who had gathered on the apron for a couple of minutes until
the full group came out of the building and headed east and testified that he took photos on
September 19 “just to show the scope of the crowd size for the first SPEEA march that we 40
encountered.” (Tr. 451, 468, 473.) Catalini’s September 19 USIR corroborates employee
testimony regarding photographs taken by security guards of the walkers at various points
along the route. (Tr. 452–453; GC Exh. 29(b).) Security guards did not instruct the walkers to
stay in the pedestrian lanes nor did they direct any of the walkers to or out of a particular area.
(Tr. 247, 474.) In addition, guards testified it was not their role to direct or interact with the 45
walkers; rather, their role was to provide an escort in the front and the rear of the walk, and to
document the walk with photography. (Tr. 447, 474.)
JD(SF)–23–14
10
The Engineers’ Union members testifying at hearing believably expressed that as a
group it was not their intent as marchers to block pedestrian or vehicular traffic or to shut down
work being performed by the Machinists’ Union members or others during the walk. (Tr. 82,
145–146, 189–190.) The Respondent’s guards, and not the Engineers’ Union members, 5
temporarily stopped vehicular traffic to allow the marchers to proceed along their route. (82,
85, 145–147, 176, 190–191, 262, 462, 465, 545, 553.) While Guard Lopez estimated that the
September 19 walk took approximately 15–25 minutes to complete, generally the estimate by
employees was that the walk took from 40–45 minutes to complete and was conducted
primarily during the Engineers’ Union members’ lunch period. (Tr. 83, 86, 114, 187, 540.) 10
The march did not materially impact or slowdown work being performed at the factory,
production which occurs generally nonstop 24 hours a day, 5 days a week at Respondent. (87,
111–112, 123, 151, 577–578, 642, 648.) Any chanting or other noisemaking engaged in by the
marchers blended in or was drowned out by the usual loud factory noise made by non-march 15
workers in the normal course of their workday from operating forklifts, rivet guns, scissor lifts,
welding guns, and cranes. (88–89, 151, 477.) The single witness testimony to the contrary is
rejected as outweighed by more credible testimony denying the use of air horns and by the fact
that Guard Catalini’s USIR did not indicate that air horns were used by the marchers, the path
taken by the marchers did not pass by any marked restricted areas, and the USIR itself provides 20
that “the rally was conducted without incident” and that “[n]o derogatory signs or chants were
seen or heard.” (Tr. 153, 164, 711; GC Exh. 29(b).) While the photos taken by Catalini were
not of individual marchers, the faces of various marchers in most of the photos are clear enough
to identify individual SPEAA employee marchers. (GC Exh. 29(b).)
25
(ii) The December 12 Engineers’ Union March at the Everett Plant
Like its earlier September march, the Engineers’ Union conducted a December 12 red-
shirt walk that started and ended at the Tully’s in the Everett factory building during the union
members’ lunchbreak and took approximately 40 minutes to complete.12 (Tr. 218–219.) Also as 30
before, approximately 150–250 Engineers’ Union members participated in the march to show
solidarity during contract negotiations with Respondent. (Tr. 214–215, 219, 282, 284; GC Exh.
34.) The Engineers’ Union did not instruct its members to disrupt factory work during the
march. (Tr. 241.)
35
The march began at approximately 11 a.m. at the Tully’s location and security guards
Hess and Lopez were dispatched to control traffic for the march after a guard reported
employees wearing red Engineers’ Union shirts gathering in the factory at Tully’s. (Tr. 222,
283, 504.) Guard Lopez prepared a USIR for the march and attached to the report photographs
taken by guards of the marchers at various points along the way. (Tr. 514; GC Exh. 34.) 40
Similar to the September march, employees held posters during the march that said.
“No Nerds No Birds,” “We Don’t Need Corporate Greed,” “We Delivered, Will Boeing,” and
“Respect be it to the Max,” and chanted slogans throughout various points along the route. (Tr.

12 Guard Lopez estimated that the December 12 march took approximately 15 minutes to
complete. Tr. 540.
JD(SF)–23–14
11
219, 229.) Slogans were chanted repeating the various posters messages and the spelling of the
members’ union “S-P-E-E-A.” (Tr. 220.) As before, any chanting or other noisemaking
engaged in by the marchers blended in or was drowned out by the usual loud factory noise
made by non-march workers in the normal course of their workday from operating forklifts,
robotic machines, rivet guns, general banging or hammering, scissor lifts, welding guns, and 5
cranes. (Tr. 221, 291–292.)
At the start of the march, a vehicle stopped for the marchers as they were heading west
along the pedestrian aisle adjacent to the transportation lane. (Tr. 293, 308.) The vehicle waited
no more than a minute or two for the remaining 75 marchers to pass before passing though. (Tr. 10
293.) On two other occasions, vehicles moved adjacent to the marchers who were in pedestrian
aisles and throughout the march, employees made an effort to stay in the pedestrian walkways
and out of the transportation aisles during the march. (Tr. 250, 254, 294, 511, 521: GC Exh. 3;
GC Exh. 34.) On one other occasion, marchers encountered a truck at the end of the 40-21
building and waited for the truck to pass on before they crossed over the transportation aisle. 15
(Tr. 295; GC Exh. 3.)
The marchers moved west down the main transportation aisle, headed south halfway
down the transportation aisle located in the middle of the 40–21 building, and followed the
pedestrian paths heading eastbound through the 40–22, 40–23, 40–24, and 40–25 buildings. 20
They next intersected the transportation aisle in the 40-25 building, headed south along that
lane until intersecting another pedestrian aisle, and turned east until arriving at the building 40-
26 bay. At that point, they headed northward in the pedestrian aisle of the same 40-26 building
until it intersected with the main transportation aisle, crossed over that aisle and then headed
west along the pedestrian pathway back to the Tully’s. (Tr. 222–223, 230, 250–252, 285; GC 25
Exh. 3; GC Exh. 34.)
Marchers followed the pedestrian aisle which was located between two aircraft in
positions one and two when employees entered the 777 area of the factory in the 40–25
building. (Tr. 618; GC Exh. 3; R. Exh. 5.) Machinists performing prep work for functional tests 30
up around the vertical stabilizer paused for approximately 10–25 minutes to continue their
work while the marchers completely passed by. (Tr. 619, 642, 647–648.) Jason Clark (Clark),
Respondent’s director of manufacturing and operations of the 777 airplane, opined that this
brief pause in work and even a 20 minute pause in work did not delay the delivery date of any
of the aircraft. (Tr. 563, 605, 642.) In addition, no crane moves were noted by the marchers 35
along the route used on December 12. (Tr. 237, 300.)
Engineers’ Union member Sandra Hastings (Hastings) witnessed a Respondent security
guard taking photos of the marchers with what appeared to her to be a cell phone when the
marchers were walking east between building 40–24 and building 40–25 through rows J, K, 40
and L. (Tr. 290; GC Exh. 3.) At that same time, marchers were walking and chanting but they
were not blocking vehicular or pedestrian traffic nor were they interfering with any work going
on at the factory. (Tr. 290, 292.)
Because there was no crosswalk across the transportation aisle, marchers looked both 45
ways and crossed over the main transportation aisle to get to the pedestrian path located along
the north side of the main transportation aisle when marchers first arrived at the end of the
JD(SF)–23–14
12
pedestrian aisle as they headed north along the 40-26 building. (Tr. 223-224; GC Exh. 3; GC
Exh. 10; GC Exh. 34.) It took the entire group of marchers less than 5 minutes to all cross
between the two pedestrian walkways across the main transportation aisle – a common practice
by all Respondent employees, union and nonunion, who frequently cross the main
transportation aisle at this location to get to the pedestrian aisle without taking an alternative 5
route. (Tr. 227, 640–641: GC Exh. 3.)
At this point near the end of the march, Guard Lopez stopped his vehicle in the main
transportation aisle to photograph marchers and to prevent vehicular traffic from proceeding
down the transportation aisle. There was, however, no vehicular traffic stopped there as the 10
marchers crossed over the aisle to get to the pedestrian aisle. (Tr. 227–228, 513.) Guard Lopez
was also observed photographing marchers a second time while inside his vehicle at location I-
12, building 40–24, approximately 10–12 minutes after Lopez was initially observed taking
photos. (Tr. 228–229; GC Exh. 3.) Lopez testified that he took photos on December 12 “to
ensure safety and to document the event.” (Tr. 509.) Engineers’ Member Shannon Moriarty 15
(Moriarty) was gathering employees and leading some chants at that time before marchers were
dismissed to go back to work. (Tr. 229.) As before in September, there was no material
interference with any work performed at the factory. (Tr. 229, 241, 642; GC Exh. 34.) While
the photos taken by Lopez were not of individual marchers, the faces of various marchers in
most of the photos are clear enough to identify individual SPEAA employee marchers. (GC 20
Exh. 34.)
(iii) December 12 Interaction Between Ms. Moriarty and Mr. Lopez at
Everett
25
Engineers’ Union members observed Guard Lopez a third time sitting in his security
vehicle in the main transportation aisle at the intersection closest to the Tully’s in the factory
building on December 12. (Tr. 230. GC Exh. 3; GC Exh. 11.) At this time, Lopez engaged in
two short conversations with two employees – Moriarty and Hastings.
30
When Moriarty approached Lopez parked in his vehicle, she stated: “I noticed you were
taking photographs of our group.” (Tr. 231.) Lopez responded: “I’ve been directed to document
all union activities.” Id. Lopez admitted the same with his testimony but added that the photos
were “to ensure safety.” (Tr. 509.) Moriarty replied: “It makes our folks feel a bit
uncomfortable.” Id. Moriarty further reported that in conflict with Lopez’ testimony, he did not 35
tell her he was taking photos to ensure compliance with safety or to document traffic or safety
concerns and he clearly indicated to her that he would continue to document and take photos to
document in his report that 250 individuals participated in the walk. (Tr. 231, 523.) Lopez’
USIR provides that 200–250 SPEEA members participated in the march. (GC Exh. 34.)
40
As their discussion was ending, Engineers’ Union member Hastings approached Lopez
and Moriarty and began to speak with Lopez as Moriarty left the group. (Tr. 232-233.) Hastings
asked Lopez twice what he was doing with his camera and each time he replied that he was
taking photos of non-Boeing activity. (Tr. 288.) Hastings then asked Lopez why he was taking
these photos and he responded by saying: “We always do this [photo taking].” Id. No 45
testimony was presented that during their conversation Lopez told Hastings that he was taking
photos to ensure compliance with safety standards or to document safety concerns or violations.
JD(SF)–23–14
13
(Tr. 289.) At the end of these conversations, the march was winding down and there were
approximately 15 marchers remaining leaving the pedestrian aisle and not blocking any
vehicular or pedestrian traffic or interfering with plant operations. (Tr. 288–289.)
Both Moriarty and Hastings opined that neither Lopez nor any other guards directed 5
vehicular or pedestrian traffic during the march and Lopez’ report is silent with respect to
engaging verbally with employees or otherwise directing traffic as it indicates that he merely
observed Engineers’ Union employees and photographed them. (Tr. 240, 303; GC Exh. 32.)
Lopez testified: “I was in my vehicle and I was approached, and I was questioned why 10
we were taking photographs. And my reply to her was that I am taking photograph[s] at the
request of my management. And we take those pictures to document safety and the review of
safety.” (Tr. 523.) Also, Lopez’ version of his interaction with Hastings was that it was just a
“short little hi, how you doing” with nothing related to photographs. Id.
15
(b) The September 26 Engineers’ Union walk at Respondent’s Renton, Washington Facility
Respondent’s Renton plant is located along the southern end of Lake Union near a
commercial development called The Landing. (Tr. 419–420, 691; GC Exh. 12.) Respondent
manufactures its 737 airplane at the Renton facility. (Tr. 420.) About 12,000 to 13,000 20
employees work the day shift at the Renton plant. (Tr. 697.)
On Wednesday, September 26, at 11 a.m. at the southwest corner of the 482 building,
an ice cream social was held by the Engineers’ Union at the Renton plant after a red-shirt walk
to show union solidarity. (Tr. 318–320.) The last group of marchers arrived at approximately 25
11:20 a.m. to join their coworkers at the social. (Tr. 320.) Approximately 500 employees
gathered at the social to listen to Engineers’ Union president, Tom McCarty, (McCarty)
provide a contract negotiation update. Id.
Respondent’s security personnel had been advised prior to the social that an Engineers’ 30
Union rally was going to take place in front of the 481 and 482 factory buildings. (Tr. 685.)
After approximately 5–10 minutes, McCarty led a group of about half of the attendees outside
the Renton plant, through the pedestrian gate, D9, to the northwest intersection of Park and
Logan Avenue. (Tr. 320–321; GC Exh. 14.) Employees stood and chanted on the intersection
for about 15–20 minutes. (Tr. 324, 695.) 35
Soon after arriving at the intersection, employee Benjamin Braatz (Braatz) observed
Respondent guard Dean Torgude (Torgude) taking photos of the workers who were gathered at
the intersection. (Tr. 323–324.) Torgude was positioned inside a security vehicle, with his arm
extended outside the vehicle, holding a photographic device, and parked near the Respondent’s 40
property fence about 65 feet away from the gathered workers. (Tr. 324, 694–695.)
After Braatz had been at the intersection for approximately 15–20 minutes, about 100 of
his coworkers left the rally using the crosswalk button to cross Logan Avenue. (Tr. 324–325.)
Braatz has used this intersection in the past and has made it across the street before the 45
crosswalk light turns red. (Tr. 327.) After observing his co-workers cross Logan Avenue,
Braatz returned back to his building. (Tr. 324.)
JD(SF)–23–14
14
Security guard Torgude testified that he took photos of workers at this intersection for
“[s]afety issues, safety concerns” because a lot of people were crossing the intersection and not
making it across before the walk/don’t walk signal changed to “don’t walk.” (Tr. 686, 688, 690,
692; GC Exhs. 25 and 28.) Torgude also reported this to the City of Renton after the incident. 5
(Tr. 693.) While the photos taken by Torgude were not of individual marchers, the faces of
various marchers in most of the photos are clear enough to identify individual SPEAA
employee marchers. (GC Exhs. 25 and 28.)
Approximately 12,000–13,000 employees work the day shift at the Renton plant. (Tr. 10
697.) When day shift employees get off work at the plant, many cross over Logan Avenue to
head down to the section 11 parking area across from Renton stadium. (Tr. 696–697; GC Exh.
13.) Often, workers do not make it across Logan Avenue before the stoplight or the walk/don’t
walk sign changes. (Tr. 697.) Guard Torgude has notified the City of Renton several times
with respect to traffic safety issues in connection with employees getting off shift. (Tr. 697–15
698.) Respondent’s security guards have not taken photographs of employees under such
common circumstances prior to the rally on September 26. (Tr. 698.)
(c) The October 3 surveillance in building 85–001 at Respondent’s Portland, Oregon
Facility20
The first red-shirt march conducted by the Engineers’ Union at Respondent’s Portland,
Oregon facility took place on October 3 and was organized by employee Kenneth Parcher
(Parcher). (Tr. 662.) Before the October 3 march, the Portland security guards were instructed
by Respondent about what to do if there were any “demonstrations” in Portland. (GC Exh. 24.) 25
The instructions do not mention a single incident of disruption or safety violations in describing
what had occurred at other Respondent facilities. Id. In addition, the instructions provide: “If
there is a demonstration please let me know and have the patrol respond to the event, take
photos of those involved in the event, ensure participants are acting in a safe manner and
clearly document the event in USIR before the end of your shift.” Id. 30
On October 3, approximately 45–50 employees gathered at about 11:15 a.m. at the flag
pole area on the north side of the Portland facility to participate in the march. (Tr. 339.) The
majority of employees were wearing red Engineers’ Union shirts. (Tr. 340.) A few held poster-
sized union signs which said, “Respect SPEEA to the Max.” Id. 35
On September 5, Security Site Manager Don Collins (Collins) sent an email to Portland
facility guards indicating that Engineers’ Union activity was likely to increase in the coming
weeks and to ensure that guards documented any Union demonstrations with USIR and
photographs at the facility. (Tr. 665, 677; GC Exh. 24.) When the march began, Collins 40
instructed guard Ed Crowe (Crowe) to be in front of the walk and to have a uniformed guard
follow the walk. (Tr. 665, 677.)
JD(SF)–23–14
15
After gathering at the flag pole, employees walked through the office hallways and
through the production areas of the three main buildings of the Portland facility —buildings 85-
120, 85-001, and 85–105.13 Engineers’ Union members did not chant nor use noisemakers and
there were no derogatory signs used by the marchers during the October 3 Portland walk. (Tr.
679; GC Exh. 33.) 5
After Engineers’ Union members marched through the Portland factory area in the 85-
001 building, they went to a training area in front of the building, and Parcher observed guard
Crowe filming the employees walking past him either single file or in pairs using a digital
camera. (Tr. 346, 679.) Parcher was approximately 20 feet away from Crowe when he first 10
noticed him filming the walkers. Crowe continued to film employees as they passed right by
him. (Tr. 346, 668.) Employees were not chanting, blocking workers, or preventing work from
being performed. (Tr. 356–347.)
The marchers continued down the front of building 85–001, went inside the cafeteria, 15
continued along to the front of the building and re-entered the building through the main
entrance and proceeded down the main hallway. (Tr. 347.) Immediately after the marchers re-
entered the building through the main entrance, Crowe was right there taking photos of the
marchers. (Tr. 347, 668; GC Exh. 26.) This time, Crowe was taking photos within 5 feet of the
marchers despite the fact that they were not chanting, making noise, or preventing work from 20
being completed. (Tr. 348, 675.) After exiting the 85–001 building, the marchers walked
through the 85–105 building. (Tr. 349–350.)
On October 4, Crowe filed an incident report of the October 3 march that describes the
march as lasting approximately 40 minutes and not being disruptive to the non-march work25
force as the march was quiet with no chants, whistles, or horns. (GC Exh. 33.) The report also
indicates that photos and video were taken of the October 3 march. Id. While the photos taken
by Crowe were not of individual marchers, the faces of various marchers in most of the photos
are clear enough to identify individual SPEAA employee marchers. (GC Exh. 33.)
30
2. Rule PRO 2783
Respondent attempts to regulate camera use on its properties to protect information
from disclosure to third parties. (Tr. 383–384.) The use of camera-enabled devices in classified 35

13 Respondent’s counsel argues in fn. 16 of its closing brief that it was error for me to
disallow Respondent the opportunity to introduce additional evidence of Respondent’s
surveillance in the Portland Building 85–001 factory floor area, an area that General Counsel
had no prior evidence of surveillance before hearing. This case involves, among other things,
allegations of Respondent’s illegal surveillance of SPEEA employees in the Portland building
85–001 office area. A review of the hearing transcript at pp. 659–661 shows that Respondent
was given ample opportunity to present new evidence of Respondent’s filming in the building
85–001factory floor area in exchange for General Counsel amending the complaint to add more
surveillance allegations but Respondent’s counsel, instead, elected to forego adding further
surveillance to this case and, therefore, waived its opportunity to add evidence of additional
filming in the factory floor area.
JD(SF)–23–14
16
areas at Respondent’s facilities is prohibited outright and these classified areas are designated
by signage, locks, and warning signs.14 (Tr. 386, 428.) Respondent also physically designates
its proprietary and less sensitive than classified areas at its Everett facility by placing it behind
locked doors or with signage and either curtains, fences or theatre tape. (Tr. 428–429.)
5
Respondent has a working procedure/rule, PRO 2783, known by its employees, that
precludes the use of personal camera-enabled devices without a valid business need and a
preapproved Camera Permit from Respondent. (Tr. 183; GC Exh. 8.) This rule was last revised
to its current restricted language in November 2011. Specifically, the rule provides:
10
A. Possession of the following camera-enabled devices is permitted on all company
property and locations except as restricted by government regulation, contract
requirements or by increased local security requirements.
However, use of these devices to capture images or video is prohibited without a 15
valid business need and an approved Camera Permit that has been reviewed and
approved by Security: [list of devices omitted]. Id. [Emphasis in original.]
The definition of business need is:
20
Business need: In relation to the use of a photographic or imaging device, a business
need is a determination made by the authorizing manager that images or video are
needed for a contractual requirement, training, technical manuals, advertising, technical
analysis, or other purpose that provides a positive benefit to the company. Id.
25
PRO 2783 applies to the two main divisions of Respondent: Boeing Commercial
Airplanes (BCA) and Boeing Defense Based Group (BDS). (Tr. 378.) Moriarty explained that
she was given express permission by Respondent and allowed to take photos while on a VIP
tour at the Everett facility with her own photo-enabled device that were not reviewed at the
conclusion of the tour. (Tr. 279–282.) Respondent’s director of 777 operations opined that 30
typically no outside visitor on a VIP tour who takes photos at Respondent would have their
cameras or cellphones seized for taking improper photos and he did not recall any incident
where a VIP visitor had their camera or cellphone seized for taking an improper photo. (Tr.
646.) Instead, Respondent just hopes for cooperation from the VIP tour individuals in sharing
photographs of the inside Everett facility they take with Respondent. Id. 35
Respondent’s Exhibit 5 is a dvd or video it produced for public consumption showing
the 18–19 days of the manufacturing process or moving final assembly line of its 777 airplanes
over a lengthy period of time at the Everett facility. (Tr. 593, 598, 646.) Respondent also has a
continuing policy known as PRO-3439 relating to disclosure of information outside the 40
company. (GC Exh. 36.) This policy specifically provides, among other things:
Nothing in this procedure should be construed as preventing employees from:

14 This case does not involve any allegation that photos were taken in Respondent’s
classified areas.
JD(SF)–23–14
17
1. Discussing or releasing information about wages, hours, working
conditions, or other terms and conditions of employment to the extent
privileged by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act or other law ….
Id.
5
ANALYSIS
I. CREDIBILITY
10
I have outlined my credibility findings in the findings of fact above and in the analysis
below. As a general matter, however, in significant instances, reliable documentary evidence
fails to support accounts provided by Respondent’s key witnesses which weighs against such
accounts being credible. Evidence contradicting the findings, particularly testimony from
Madison, Smith, Harris, and Lopez, has been considered but has not been credited except to the 15
extent it is consistent with more reliable witness testimony. For example, the general theme of
Respondent’s defense of the alleged Act violations here is that its questioned rules were put in
place: (1) due to Respondent’s “reasonable” concerns with trespassing and safety issues related
to each of the four Engineers’ Union marches discussed in this decision; and (2) to protect its
valuable manufacturing process from competitive or terrorist outsiders with its anti-camera-20
device rule PRO 2783.
I find that the convincing testimony from Respondent’s security guards Catalini and
Lopez as well as their USIR reports and the largely undisputed testimony at hearing from the
eight Engineers’ Union members provides strong evidence that Respondent’s employees 25
regularly veer outside Respondent’s internal safety rules without discipline on a daily basis.
These include frequent examples of not wearing safety glasses in the Everett factory facility or
walking outside the pedestrian walkways into the transportation aisles or walking outside on
the Everett factory apron through large overhead doors or walking across Logan Avenue
outside the Renton facility to get to their parked cars after work before the stoplight warning 30
light changes. No evidence was submitted that showed that any of these alleged employee
infractions led to any form of discipline by Respondent before or after any of the Engineers’
Union marches in 2012. Therefore I reject Respondent’s alleged safety concerns to justify its
questioned conduct here as it is contradicted by its actions, the documentary evidence and
Engineers’ Union members’ testimony. Had these alleged safety infractions been real and 35
enough to provide Respondent with solid justification for its photographing or videotaping, one
would expect employee citations or some form of discipline taken to correct such unsafe
conduct. In fact, there is no evidence that the security guards who escorted the marchers
instructed them at any time to comply with Respondent’s safety rules had they actually been in
violation. I also reject Respondent’s argument that individual participants cannot be identified 40
in the photos taken of the solidarity marches.
In addition, I reject Respondent’s allegation that its questioned conduct was justified
due to the disruptive nature of the marches because the evidence shows that each of the four
marches were not disruptive and Respondent maintained its production schedule with only its 45
own security guards receiving Respondent’s instructions to stop traffic during marches. For
example, Clark, Respondent’s director of manufacturing and operations of the 777 airplane,
JD(SF)–23–14
18
was very candid and believable when he opined that the brief pause in work from the December
12 march and even a 20-minute pause in work did not delay the delivery date of any of the
aircraft. (Tr. 563, 605, 642.)
I also find the eight Engineers’ Union employees’ testimony particularly credible over 5
Respondent’s manager witnesses’ testimony given the fact that each of the eight nonsupervisor
engineer employees testified against their own interests as they were employed at Respondent
at the time of trial and must continue to face Respondent’s management after trial. See S.E.
Nichols, Inc., 284 NLRB 556 fn. 2 (1987) (Current respondent employee’s testimony more
reliable because it is given against his interest to remain employed by Respondent.). 10
As to the credibility of Moriarty, Hastings, and Lopez with respect to their
conversations on December 12 when Lopez was approached while in his vehicle as the
Engineers’ march was ending, I credit Moriarty and Hastings versions of what Lopez said over
his own blunted testimony. Moriarty and Hastings were more convincing witnesses as their 15
demeanors were confident and their versions of events having Lopez omit any reference that he
was taking photos to ensure compliance with safety standards or to document safety concerns
or violations were more believable and consistent with the documentary evidence in this case.
This includes the USIR of Lopez which is silent with respect to engaging verbally with
employees or otherwise directing traffic as it indicates that he merely observed Engineers’ 20
Union employees and photographed them. (Tr. 240, 303; GC Exh. 32.) As per the guards, the
purpose of their photographing the walk was to show the scope of the crowd size for the first
Engineers’ Union walk at the facility. (Tr. 451, 473, 480, 538.) Even Catalini testified that
before the September 19 march he and Lopez were instructed by Hess to document the scope
and size of the crowd, any intimidating factors with no reference to any safety concerns. (Tr. 25
480, 538.)
Moreover, Respondent produced a video (R. Exh. 5), for public distribution that shows
the very manufacturing process that Respondent at hearing argued needs protection from
outsiders with its rule PRO 2783. While Respondent does get involved in top secret military 30
and other highly confidential matters, those designated areas are not at issue here as
Respondent argues that its manufacturing process at the Everett factory floor facility is highly
confidential though as stated above, its video showing the very same process over many days’
time is a public video and Respondent conducts VIP tours to foreign and local employers
without the same concern for privacy it has toward its Engineers’ Union member employees. I 35
further find that any concern for plant or worker safety is noticeably absent from the security
guard reports with respect to the Everett and Portland marches and only passing reference is
made to a safety concern outside its facility in the Renton march report though, once again, no
employees were cited for trespassing or any other safety or work rule violation. Respondent’s
defense here appears to have been created after the marches at issue. Therefore, I do not find 40
that Respondent’s general theme of the case credible as it is greatly outweighed by the several
Engineers’ Union members’ testimony and its own internal reports.
II. Respondent’s Surveillance Rule to Photograph or Video Engineers’ Union Marchers
45
The General Counsel alleges in paragraphs 7(a), 7(c ), 7(d), 9, 12, and 14 of the
complaint that, on September 19 and December 12 in and around Respondent’s Everett factory
JD(SF)–23–14
19
facility, September 26 near gate D-9 at the Renton facility, and October 3 in building 85–001 at
its Portland facility, Respondent, by its security guards engaged in surveillance of the
Engineers’ Union and/or protected, concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
5
The fundamental principles governing employer surveillance by photographing or
videotaping of protected employee activity remain unchanged as set forth in F. W. Woolworth
Co., 310 NLRB 1197 (1993), as follows:
. . .[A]n employer’s mere observation of open, public union activity on or near its 10
property does not constitute unlawful surveillance. Photographing and videotaping such
activity clearly constitute more than mere observation, however, because such pictorial
record keeping tends to create fear among employees of future reprisals. The Board in
Woolworth reaffirmed the principle that photographing in the mere belief that
something might happen does not justify the employer’s conduct to interfere with 15
employees’ right to engage in concerted activity . . . . Rather, the Board requires an
employer engaging in such photographing or videotaping to demonstrate that it had a
reasonable basis to have anticipated misconduct by the employees. “[T]he Board may
properly require a company to provide a solid justification for its resort to anticipatory
photographing . . . . The inquiry is whether the photographing or videotaping has a 20
reasonable tendency to interfere with protected activity under the circumstances in each
case. [Citations omitted.]”
National Steel & Shipbuilding Co., 324 NLRB 499 (1997), enfd. 156 F.3d 1268 (D.C. Cir.
1998). Therefore, Respondent must show that it had a reasonable, objective basis for 25
anticipatory misconduct before its photography or videotape of any Engineers’ Union march is
allowed. Furthermore, F. W. Woolworth Co., supra at 1197, held that the mere taking of photos
of protected activity is inherently intimidating and that taking photos just to stick them in a file
as seems to be Respondent’s policy here is not solid legal justification.
30
Respondent argues that an employer’s photography of employees engaged in a peaceful
demonstration does not constitute per se unlawful surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of
the Act and cites as authority the case U.S. Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 682 F.2d 98, 101 (3d Cir.
1982.) However, I am not bound by the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in U.S. Steel
Corp. I am bound to follow Board precedent that has not been reversed by the Supreme Court 35
or the Board itself. See Pathmark Stores, 342 NLRB 378 fn. 1 (2004). As such, I find that
General Counsel does not have the burden to show that Respondent’s photographing or
videotaping of Engineers’ Union marches caused actual interference, restraint, or coercion of
employees’ exercise of their Section 7 rights under the Act.
40
Respondent further argues that its photographing and videotaping of Engineers’ Union
marches in late 2012 were lawful “because [Respondent’s] attempts to document disruptive and
unsafe SPEEA marches were based on legitimate and substantial safety and business disruption
concerns.” (R.Br. at 28–32.) Respondent adds that its prior history with Machinists’ Union
marches justified its questionable conduct here along with the Engineers’ Union members’ 45
actual disruption and workplace safety violations. Id.
JD(SF)–23–14
20
I reject Respondent’s argument that the larger Machinists’ Union marches are relevant
to this case as I find that they are too remote in time and represent actions by an entirely
different group of employees represented by a different union under different circumstances.
While no evidence of violence or trespassing was tied to Machinists’ Union marches either,
Respondent’s smaller professional Engineers’ Union members’ conduct does not provide a 5
solid justification for Respondent’s resort to anticipatory photographing and the Engineers’
Union should not be held accountable for an entirely different union members’ conduct that
occurred more than 4 years earlier under different circumstances.
In addition, as stated above, there were no actual incidents of trespass or violence cited 10
against any Engineers’ Union employee to provide solid justification for the questioned
photography or videotaping. There were no reports of unsafe behavior that Respondent had not
seen before any of the four marches at issue in this case during regular workdays when no
Engineers’ Union marches occurred. Significantly, not any of the marchers were disciplined for
any safety violations during any of the four marches. No evidence was presented showing 15
photographs of Respondent’s employees behaving in the same manner as when they marched.
If photography of the same alleged unsafe conduct does not exist before the march (though
credible evidence shows this behavior to be the same) then what is different about
Respondent’s employees’ behavior on the questioned dates of the marches – only the fact that
the Engineers’ Union employees are marching. This alone is not solid justification to 20
photograph or videotape these employees. Moreover, Respondent provided the marchers with
security guard escorts in the front and back of the marchers and the guards also stopped
vehicular traffic around the marchers thereby improving safety conditions during marches.
Respondent’s photographing and videotaping of Engineers’ Union members marching 25
prevented employees who desired to march anonymously from doing so. Consistent with Board
precedent, I find that Respondent’s deviation from Respondent’s regular custom and practice of
not photographing, videotaping, or citing or disciplining its employees’ very same non-citable
behavior was not legitimate. This conduct that occurred before and after the late 2012 marches
includes not wearing safety goggles, walking outside of pedestrian walkways and congregating 30
at Respondent’s third party-run Tully’s Coffee Shop during breaks, walking onto Respondent’s
outside apron and under large overhead doors, and walking across crosswalks outside the
facility and Respondent’s property after warning lights have changed. I find that photographing
and videotaping this same noncitable conduct only during Engineers’ Union marches protected
under Section 7 of the Act where no incidents of trespass or violence were recorded violates 35
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Also, Respondent’s argument that the photography was justified due to the disruption of
Respondent’s manufacturing process caused by the marches is again false. None of the USIRs
note any interference with production. Specifically, the USIR tied to the October 3 Portland 40
Engineers’ Union march expressly states that there was no interference. (GC Exh. 34.) As
stated above, Respondent’s director of manufacturing and operations convincingly opined that
the brief pause in work caused by the Engineers’ Union marches and even all of the marches
combined did not delay the delivery date of any of the aircraft in Everett. (Tr. 563, 605, 642.)
Furthermore, the September 26 solidarity walk was an ice cream social held outside the Renton 45
facility which obviously did not cause any production disruption inside the facility where work
is performed.
JD(SF)–23–14
21
Respondent cites Washington Fruit & Produce Co., 343 NLRB 1215, 1217–1218
(2004), for its argument that it had a reasonable basis to suspect anticipatory misconduct on the
part of the Engineers’ Union members during each of the four marches to warrant its
photography and videotaping of the protected concerted activities. I find that Washington Fruit 5
& Produce Co. is distinguishable from the facts in this case because there the respondent’s
safety concerns were legitimate and the majority of 100 marchers in Washington Fruit &
Produce included complete strangers who were not respondent’s employees and at the time the
decision to videotape was made the deciding official knew that the union was planning a high
profile event with its own out-of-state union officials and that there had been previous 10
trespassing on respondent’s property that led respondent to contact the police for help a second
time that day. The Board found respondent’s videotaping lawful given these unique facts and
the prior incidents of trespassing on respondent’s property and further finding that taking
photographs or videotaping to document trespassory activities for the purpose of making a
claim of trespass is lawful. Id. 15
Consequently, for the reasons stated herein, I find that photographing and
videotaping the four Engineers’ Union marches in late 2012 was not reasonably based on solid
justification and each instance violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
20
III. Security Guard Lopez’ December 12 Conversations with Engineers’ Members
Moriarty and Hastings
The General Counsel alleges in paragraphs 10, 1, and 14 of the complaint that, on 25
December 12, 2012, Respondent, by Lopez, at the Everett factory facility, created an
impression among its employees that their union and/or protected, concerted activities were
under surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The test for determining whether an employer has created an impression that its 30
employees’ protected activities have been placed under surveillance is “whether the employees
would reasonably assume from the employer’s statements or conduct that their protected
activities had been placed under surveillance.” Greater Omaha Packing Co., 360 NLRB No.
62, slip op. at 3 (2014); Rood Industries, 278 NLRB 160, 164 (1986). When an employer tells
employees that it is aware of their protected activities, but fails to tell them the source of that 35
information, it violates Section 8(a)(1) “because employees are left to speculate as to how the
employer obtained the information, causing them reasonably to conclude the information was
obtained through employer monitoring.” Id.
Here, the Engineers’ Union did not advise Respondent ahead of its December 12 march 40
that a march would occur at the Everett facility that day. The march began at approximately
11a.m. at the Tully’s location and security guards Hess and Lopez were dispatched to control
traffic for the march after a guard reported employees wearing red Engineers’ Union shirts
gathering in the factory at Tully’s. (Tr. 222, 283, 504.)
45
Engineers’ Union members observed Guard Lopez sitting in his security vehicle in the
main transportation aisle at the intersection closest to the Tully’s in the factory building on
JD(SF)–23–14
22
December 12. (Tr. 230. GC Exh. 3; GC Exh. 11.) At this time, Lopez engaged in two short
conversations with two employees – Moriarty and Hastings. When Moriarty approached Lopez
parked in his vehicle, she stated: “I noticed you were taking photographs of our group.” (Tr.
231.) Lopez responded: “I’ve been directed to document all union activities.” Id. Lopez
admitted the same with his testimony. (Tr. 509.) Moriarty replied: “It makes our folks feel a bit 5
uncomfortable.” Id. Moriarty further reported that Lopez did not tell her he was taking photos
to ensure compliance with safety or to document traffic or safety concerns and he clearly
indicated to her that he would continue to document and take photos to document in his report
that 250 individuals participated in the walk. (Tr. 231, 523.) Lopez’ USIR provides that 200–
250 SPEEA members participated in the march. (GC Exh. 34.) 10
As their discussion was ending, Engineers’ Union member Hastings approached Lopez
and Moriarty and began to speak with Lopez as Moriarty left the group. (Tr. 232–233.)
Hastings asked Lopez twice what he was doing with his camera and each time he replied that
he was taking photos of non-Boeing activity. (Tr. 288.) Hastings then asked Lopez why he was 15
taking these photos and he responded by saying: “We always do this [photo taking].” Id. No
testimony was presented that during their conversation Lopez told Hastings that he was taking
photos to ensure compliance with safety standards or to document safety concerns or violations.
(Tr. 289.) At the end of these conversations, the march was winding down and there were
approximately 15 marchers remaining leaving the pedestrian aisle and not blocking any 20
vehicular or pedestrian traffic or interfering with plant operations. (Tr. 288–289.)
Both Moriarty and Hastings opined that neither Lopez nor any other guards directed
vehicular or pedestrian traffic during the march and Lopez’ report is silent with respect to
engaging verbally with employees as it indicates that he merely observed Engineers’ Union 25
employees and photographed them. (Tr. 240, 303; GC Exh. 32.)
In determining whether an employer has unlawfully created the impression of
surveillance of employees’ union activities, the test is whether under all the relevant
circumstances, reasonable employees would assume from the statement in question that their 30
union or other protected activities had been placed under surveillance. Frontier Telephone of
Rochester, Inc., 344 NLRB 1270, 1276 (2005). The essential focus has always been on the
reasonableness of the employees’ assumption that the employer was monitoring their union or
protected activities. Id. As with all conduct alleged to violate Section 8(a)(1), the critical
element of reasonableness is analyzed under an objective standard. Id. 35
I find that the Lopez’ activities taking photographs of the December 12 march at various
times and parked in his vehicle solely to document Engineers’ Union activities without any
further explanation and the Respondent did not explain to the workers or put forth any credible
evidence at trial that explained that why it was taking photos of the December 12 march. 40
Therefore, Lopez’ statements to Moriarty and Hastings on December 12 that he’d been directed
to document all union activities and that he was taking photos of non-Boeing activity
reasonably suggested to the two SPEEA employees that the Respondent was closely monitoring
the degree and extent of their protected concerted march and other activities. See Emerson
Electric Co., 287 NLRB 1065 (1988). Stated differently, I find that Lopez’ statements and 45
conduct on December 12 before Moriarty and Hastings would reasonably cause them to assume
that their protected activities had been placed under surveillance. Consequently, I find that
JD(SF)–23–14
23
Lopez’ statements to Moriarty and Hastings on December 12 created the impression that the
Engineers’ Union activities were under surveillance and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
IV. Respondent’s Rule PRO 2783 Regulating Employees’ Personal Camera Picture-Taking
or Video-Taking Without a Business Need and Permit 5
The General Counsel alleges in paragraphs 6, 12, and 14 of the complaint that, on
November 11, 2011, Respondent promulgated and since then has maintained its rule PRO 2783
to discourage its employees from forming, joining, and/or assisting the Union and/or engaging
in other protected concerted activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.10
When evaluating whether a rule violates Section 8(a)(1), the Board applies the test set
forth in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004). See U-Haul Co. of
California, 347 NLRB 375, 377 (2006), enfd. 255 Fed.Appx. 527 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Under
Lutheran Heritage, the first inquiry is whether the rule explicitly restricts activities protected by 15
Section 7. If it does, the rule is unlawful. If it does not, “the violation is dependent upon a
showing of one of the following: (1) employees would reasonably construe the language to
prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; or (3) the
rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.” Lutheran Heritage at 647.
20
Board law is settled that ambiguous employer rules–rules that reasonably could be read
to have a coercive meaning – are construed against the employer. “This principle follows from
the Act’s goal of preventing employees from being chilled in the exercise of their Section 7
rights—whether or not that is the intent of the employer – instead of waiting until the chill is
manifest, when the Board must undertake the difficult task of dispelling it.” Flex Frac 25
Logistics, LLC, 358 NLRB No. 127, slip op. at 2 (2012).
Respondent argues that its rule PRO 2783 is necessary to protect the valid business need
of protecting its valuable manufacturing process. I find Respondent’s argument non-credible
based on its contrary practice of allowing free access to its manufacturing process both in the 30
form of its dvd referenced herein which has been placed by Respondent in the public domain
and its VIP tours that allow unfettered photography to the general public. I find that
Respondent’s manufacturing process is no more in need of protection than an automobile
assembly line. See Tr. 646; R. Exh. 5 (Respondent’s airplane assembly line process in the
public domain.) Respondent has adequate protection for keeping its top secret and truly 35
confidential military and commercial information and processes protected behind closed doors
with heightened security clearance. Its argument at hearing that the rule is needed to protect
Respondent’s competitive advantage and as a security matter is a mere smokescreen as its
professed business purpose for the rule is eviscerated by its actual practice which allows public
access to its Everett factory manufacturing process. As referenced above, Respondent 40
disseminates its manufacturing process to the general public in the form of its dvd. (Tr. 646; R.
Exh. 5.) In addition, Respondent admits that it allows non-Boeing outside foreign and domestic
visitors to take photos of the Everett facility without showing a similar business need or permit.
(Tr. 245, 269–272.)
45
As stated above under Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB at 646, “an
employer violates Section 8(a)(1) when it maintains a work rule that reasonably tends to chill
JD(SF)–23–14
24
employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.” Respondent maintains its rule PRO 2783
that precludes the use of personal camera-enabled devices without a valid business need,
defined to include a “purpose that provides a positive benefit to the company [Respondent] …”
and a preapproved Camera Permit from Respondent without an exemption for activity
protected by the Act. (Tr. 183; GC Exh. 8; GC Exh. 36.)5
Here, Respondent is not using its rule PRO 2783 to protect the “weighty” privacy
interests of hospital patients thereby distinguishing the facts in this case from those involved in
Flagstaff Medical Center, 357 NLRB No. 65, slip op. at 4–5 (2011). (R. Br.39–40.) Instead,
Respondent’s rule is better analyzed in the context of other recent cases. 10
In Hills & Dales General Hospital, 360 NLRB No. 70, slip op. at 1–2 (2014), the Board
found as overly broad and ambiguous, a requirement that employees represent the Respondent
“in the community in a positive and professional manner in every opportunity.” The Board
found that this requirement violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and could “discourage 15
employees from engaging in protected public protests of unfair labor practices, or from making
statements to third parties protesting their terms and conditions of employment –activity that
may not be ‘positive’ towards the Respondent but is clearly protected by Section 7. [citations
omitted]” Id. The same thing can be said of Respondent’s rule in this case requiring a “purpose
that provides a positive benefit to the company [Respondent] . . . .” as an employee could 20
reasonably believe that photographing protected concerted activity would not be viewed by
management as providing a positive benefit to Respondent. (See GC Exh. 8.) I find that
Respondent’s rule PRO 2783 reasonably discourages its employees from taking photos of
protected concerted activities such as their solidarity marching during a lunch break during
successor CBA negotiations or photographing an unsafe condition at work. 25
Moreover, the requirement that employees request and receive permission and a permit
in order to find out if their Section 7 photo activity will be permitted is adverse to the Act. See
J. W. Marriot, 359 NLRB No. 8 (21012) (Manager’s absolute discretion over application of
rule is unlawful because it requires management permission to engage in Section 7 activity and 30
leads employees to reasonably conclude that they are required to disclose to management the
nature of the activity for which they seek permission, a compelled disclosure that would
certainly tend to chill the exercise of Sec. 7 rights.) Here, I find that Respondent’s employees
would reasonably construe the rule as prohibiting all photography in Respondent’s factory
facilities including photography performed in concert of Engineers’ Union solidarity marches 35
during successor CBA negotiations or of other protected concerted activities. As such, I further
find that Respondent’s facially overly broad and ambiguous rule PRO 2783 would reasonably
tend to chill employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights and that an employee would
reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity. Consequently, I find that rule
PRO 2783 violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.1540

15 Respondent could have avoided a violation by including a caveat like it has in its Rule
PRO-3439, referenced above, that its rule PRO-2783 does not apply to conduct protected by the
Act. See generally Costco Wholesale Corp., 358 NLRB No. 106 (2012) (finding unlawful the
maintenance of a rule prohibiting statements posted electronically that “damage the Company
. . . or damage any person’s reputation”). As indicated above, Respondent uses this caveat in
JD(SF)–23–14
25
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.5
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Security Guards Hess, Lopez, and Catalini are agents within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act.
4. Respondent engaged in conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act:
(a) By surveilling employees on September 19, 2012 at the Everett factory facility.10
(b) By surveilling employees on December 12, 2012 at the Everett factory facility.
(c) By surveilling employees on September 26, 2012 near gate D-9 at Respondent’s
Renton facility.
(d) By surveilling employees on October 3, 201,2 in building 85–001 at Respondent’s
Portland, Oregon facility.15
(e) By creating an impression of surveillance of employees’ union activities on
December 12, 2012.
5. These unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
20
6. The above violations are unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist from engaging in such conduct in the future and to 25
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. To remedy the
Respondent’s violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that the Respondent
post and abide by the attached notice to employees.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the 30
following recommended16

other rules such as its continuing policy known as PRO-3439 relating to disclosure of
information outside the company. See GC Exh. 36.
16 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
JD(SF)–23–14
26
ORDER
The Respondent, The Boeing Company, Renton and Everett, Washington, Portland,
Oregon, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall5
1. Cease and desist from
(a)Photographing and videotaping employees engaged in workplace marches and
rallies and/or near its property.10
(b) Creating the impression that its employees’ union and/or protected concerted
activities are under surveillance.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees 15
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days of the Board’s Order, to the extent it has not already done so, 20
revise or rescind rule PRO 2738 so that it does not restrict Section 7 rights and allows
employees to use their personal camera enabled device in non-restricted areas.
(b) Within 14 days of the Board’s Order, to the extent it has not already done so,
rescind all policies and procedures requiring security and/or management personnel to 25
photograph or videotape employees engaged in workplace marches and rallies and/or near its
property.

102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)–23–14
27
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix A at its Everett and Renton, Washington facilities and its Portland, Oregon
facility.17 Copies of the notices, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places 5
where notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an intranet
or an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event 10
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facilities where posting is required, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notices to all current employees and former employees employed at
those facilities at any time since September 19, 2012.
15
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., May 15, 201420
_______________________
Gerald M. Etchingham25
Administrative Law Judge

17 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in
the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities.
WE WILL NOT photograph or videotape employees engaged in workplace marches and rallies
and/or near its property.
WE WILL NOT watch, photograph or videotape you in order to find out about your union
activities.
WE WILL NOT create an impression that we are watching your union activities.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days of the Board’s Order, to the extent we have not already done
so, revise or rescind PRO 2738 so that it does not restrict Section 7 rights and allows
employees to use their personal camera enabled device in non-restricted areas.
WE WILL, within 14 days of the Board’s Order, to the extent we have not already done
so, rescind all policies and procedures requiring security and/or management personnel
to photograph or videotape employees engaged in workplace marches and rallies and/or
near its property.
THE BOEING COMPANY
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
JD(SF)–23–14
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National
Labor Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation
and it investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights
under the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the
Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
915 2nd Avenue, Room 2948, Seattle, WA 98174-1078
(206) 220-6300, Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-090932 or
by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST NOT
BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE
OFFICER, (206) 220-6284.