Cintas Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
375 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 181 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2615, 482 F.3d 463 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's confidentiality rule violates Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) if employees would reasonably construe its language to prohibit protected Section 7 activity, even if the rule does not explicitly forbid such activity, has not been enforced, or there is no evidence that employees have been actually chilled by it.
Facts:
- Cintas Corporation (Cintas) operates a business supplying workplace uniforms throughout North America and employs approximately 27,000 individuals, whom it refers to as "partners."
- Cintas distributes an "Cintas Corporation Partner Reference Guide" to all employees, outlining company policies and expected conduct.
- A section of the handbook titled "Cintas Culture" contains a confidentiality rule stating: "We honor confidentiality. We recognize and protect the confidentiality of any information concerning the company, its business plans, its partners, new business efforts, customers, accounting and financial matters."
- Another section, the "Discipline Policy," warns employees that they may be sanctioned for "violating a confidence or [for the] unauthorized release of confidential information."
- The Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE HERE) believed Cintas's confidentiality rule interfered with employees' rights to discuss their terms and conditions of employment.
Procedural Posture:
- The Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE HERE) filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- The NLRB's General Counsel issued a complaint against Cintas Corporation, alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that Cintas's confidentiality provision violated the Act, finding that employees could reasonably construe it as restricting their Section 7 rights.
- The NLRB unanimously affirmed the ALJ's decision, requiring Cintas to rescind or revise the unlawful language and post a remedial notice.
- Cintas Corporation petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of the Board's order.
- The Union intervened in the appeal, opposing Cintas's petition.
- The NLRB cross-petitioned the D.C. Circuit for enforcement of its order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's confidentiality rule, which broadly prohibits disclosure of "any information concerning... partners," violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA because employees would reasonably construe it to restrict their Section 7 rights to discuss terms and conditions of employment, even absent explicit prohibition, evidence of actual employee interpretation, or employer enforcement?
Opinions:
Majority - Griffith, Circuit Judge
Yes, an employer's confidentiality rule that broadly prohibits disclosure of "any information concerning... partners" violates Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA because employees would reasonably construe it to restrict their Section 7 rights to discuss terms and conditions of employment. Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees the right to engage in concerted activities, including communicating about self-organization and terms of employment. Section 8(a)(1) prohibits employers from interfering with these rights. The court affirmed the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) decision, finding that the proper inquiry is whether employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity, citing Martin Luther Memorial Home. The court rejected Cintas's arguments that the rule was lawful because it didn't explicitly prohibit Section 7 activity, no employees had actually been chilled, or Cintas had not enforced it in that manner. The court emphasized that the "mere maintenance" of a rule likely to chill Section 7 activity can be an unfair labor practice, even without evidence of enforcement, as held in Guardsmark. The broad phrase "any information concerning... its partners" was deemed susceptible to a reasonable interpretation by employees that it restricted discussions about wages and other employment terms. The court distinguished Cintas's rule from others previously approved by the Board, which were more narrowly tailored or provided clear contextual limitations, relying on precedent like Brockton Hospital v. NLRB which invalidated a similarly broad confidentiality policy. The court concluded that a more narrowly tailored rule would be sufficient to protect Cintas's legitimate confidential information interests without infringing on employee rights.
Concurring - Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge
Yes, I concur with the majority's decision because the outcome is controlled by the court's prior ruling in Brockton Hospital v. NLRB. In Brockton Hospital, a confidentiality policy restricting information concerning "patients, [nurses], or hospital operations" was found facially overbroad because employees could reasonably interpret it to include discussions about their wages, hours, and working conditions. The Cintas rule, prohibiting "any information concerning the company, its business plans, its partners, new business efforts, customers, accounting and financial matters," is even broader on its face than the Brockton Hospital rule. Although the context, by associating employee information with business and financial matters, might suggest a narrower intent to protect legitimate business interests (under the noscitur a sociis doctrine), the precedent from Brockton Hospital compels the conclusion that the Cintas provision could still be reasonably construed by employees to restrict discussions of their wages and other terms and conditions of employment, thereby violating the NLRA.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the NLRB's long-standing position that employer policies, even if not explicitly prohibiting protected activity, can be unlawful if employees reasonably interpret them to do so. It places a significant burden on employers to draft policies with sufficient clarity and narrowness to avoid chilling Section 7 rights, particularly concerning discussions about wages and working conditions. The decision clarifies that the Board need not show actual chilling effect or intent to enforce the rule in a discriminatory way; the mere existence of an overbroad rule is sufficient for a violation. This case serves as a critical reminder for employers to review and revise employee handbooks to ensure compliance with the NLRA, favoring specific language over sweeping prohibitions when addressing confidentiality.
