Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-14-01028/USCOURTS-caDC-14-01028-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent
World Color (USA) Corp.
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 5, 2014 Decided January 16, 2015

No. 14-1028

WORLD COLOR (USA) CORP., A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY 

OF QUAD/GRAPHICS, INC.,

PETITIONER

v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

RESPONDENT

Consolidated with 14-1037

On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for 

Enforcement

of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board

Ronald J. Holland argued the cause for petitioner. With 

him on the briefs was Ellen M. Bronchetti.

David A. Seid argued the cause for respondent. With him 

on the brief were Richard F. Griffin, Jr., John H. Ferguson, 

Linda Dreeben, and Jill A. Griffin.

Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, WILKINS, Circuit Judge, 

and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKINS.

USCA Case #14-1028 Document #1532484 Filed: 01/16/2015 Page 1 of 6
2

Wilkins, Circuit Judge:

This case comes before the Court on petition for review 

of an order of the National Labor Relations Board. At issue is 

a World Color policy prohibiting employees from wearing 

baseball caps except for caps bearing the company logo. The 

NLRB determined that this policy violates the rights of World 

Color employees. Because the Board relied on a faulty 

premise in making its determination, we grant the petition for 

review and remand to the Board for reconsideration. 

I.

Petitioner World Color is a wholly owned subsidiary of 

commercial printing corporation Quad/Graphics (“Quad”). 

World Color operates a printing facility in Fernley, Nevada. 

This facility is subject to Quad policies, including the 

employee policy that is at issue in this case. J.A. 4. The 

challenged policy is found in the “Corporate Safety Program” 

section of the Employee Guidelines, and reads as follows: 

All hair hanging past the bottom of the collar must be 

secured to the head while in the production areas. If hair 

does not hang past the collar but could potentially get 

caught in our equipment, it must be secured to the head 

with a hairnet or by other means. Baseball caps are 

prohibited except for Quad/Graphics baseball caps worn 

with the bill facing forward. Ponytails are strictly 

prohibited. Facial hair longer than the base of the neck 

must be secured. J.A. 117.

The Graphic Communications Conference of the 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters filed an unfair labor 

practice charge before the NLRB, asserting that this policy 

“interfere[s] with, restrain[s] or coerce[s] employees in the 

USCA Case #14-1028 Document #1532484 Filed: 01/16/2015 Page 2 of 6
3

exercise of their Section 7 rights.”1 J.A. 91; see 29 U.S.C. 

§ 158(a)(1) (“It shall be an unfair labor practice for an 

employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in 

the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this 

title.”). The rights in question are “the right to selforganization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to 

bargain collectively through representatives of their own 

choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the 

purpose of collective bargaining.” 29 U.S.C. § 157.

It is beyond dispute that 29 U.S.C. § 157 protects an 

employee’s right to wear union insignia at work unless special 

circumstances are present. See Republic Aviation Corp. v. 

NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 801 (1945). The Administrative Law 

Judge assigned to the case determined that the hat policy 

violated this right. In doing so, the ALJ determined that the 

hat policy was distinct from Quad’s uniform policy, and that 

Quad had not substantiated its claims of special circumstances 

regarding the safety of press operators, concerns about gang 

activity, and employee presentation. World Color (USA) 

Corp., 360 NLRB No. 37, 2014-15 NLRB Dec. ¶ 15759, 

2014 WL 559195, at *13-14 (Feb. 12, 2014). The ALJ 

recommended an order barring World Color from enforcing 

the “discriminatory” hat policy.

World Color filed exceptions to the order and the 

decision, which were considered by a three-member panel of 

the National Labor Relations Board. World Color (USA) 

Corp., 2014 WL 559195, at *1. The panel accepted the ALJ’s 

determination that the hat policy was distinct from Quad’s 

 

1 While there were other charges made by the Graphic 

Communications Conference, the hat policy is the only issue 

that is before this Court.

USCA Case #14-1028 Document #1532484 Filed: 01/16/2015 Page 3 of 6
4

uniform policy and noted that, even were the hat policy a part 

of the uniform policy, it would still be subject to the “special 

circumstances” test. Id. at *1 n.3. The panel struck the 

portions of the ALJ’s order referring to the policy as 

“discriminatory,” instead relying on the policy’s overbreadth 

to establish a violation of § 158(a)(1). Id. The overbreadth 

determination was based on the Board’s conclusion that it was

“undisputed that the policy on its face prohibits employees 

from engaging in the protected activity of wearing caps 

bearing union insignia.” Id. The NLRB ordered World Color 

to rescind the hat policy, issue a revised policy, and post a 

notice stating that the NLRB had found that World Color had 

violated federal labor laws. Id. at *3-4. World Color filed a 

timely petition for review, and the NLRB cross-filed an 

application for enforcement of the order. 

Contrary to the Board’s assertion, World Color did 

dispute that the hat policy facially prohibits employees from 

wearing caps bearing union insignia. We therefore grant the 

petition for review and remand to the NLRB for 

reconsideration. 

II.

As this Court described in Guardsmark, LLC v. NLRB,

475 F.3d 369, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007), the NLRB’s 

determination of whether a policy violates § 158(a)(1) 

involves a two-step inquiry. “First, the Board examines 

whether the rule explicitly restricts section 7 activity; if it 

does, the rule violates the Act.” Id. (citations omitted) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). If the policy does not 

explicitly restrict protected activity, the Board considers

whether “(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 

USCA Case #14-1028 Document #1532484 Filed: 01/16/2015 Page 4 of 6
5

been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.” Id.

(quoting Martin Luther Memorial Home, 343 NLRB 646, 647

(2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The NLRB short-circuited this inquiry at the first step by 

concluding that there was no dispute regarding whether the 

policy facially prohibited employees from wearing caps 

bearing union insignia. We disagree with this conclusion. 

Although the hat policy restricts the type of hat that may be 

worn, it does not say anything about whether union insignia 

may be attached to the hat. Moreover, the general uniform 

policy allows employees to accessorize “in good taste and in 

accordance with all safety rules” and asserts that “[a]ll 

uniform requirements will be applied in accordance with 

applicable laws.” J.A. 112. World Color has consistently 

argued that the hat is part of its uniform policy and that World 

Color’s policies therefore facially allow an employee to adorn 

their Quad hat with union insignia. Indeed, World Color 

made this argument before the Board, asserting that “the hat 

policy does not expressly prohibit employees from wearing 

union insignia at work, on their hat or otherwise,” and noting 

that “the Government presented no evidence that Quad’s 

policy prevents employees from wearing union insignia on 

their hats . . . the policy simply prevents employees from 

replacing the Company hat with any hat of their own 

choosing.” Respondent Quad/Graphic Inc.’s Brief in Support 

of its Exceptions to Decision and Order of the Administrative 

Law Judge at 15-16, World Color, 2014 WL 559195. The 

Board’s conclusion that “it is undisputed that the policy on its 

face prohibits employees from engaging in the protected 

activity of wearing caps bearing union insignia” is therefore 

contradicted by the record. World Color, 2014 WL 559195, 

at *1 n.3 (emphasis added).

USCA Case #14-1028 Document #1532484 Filed: 01/16/2015 Page 5 of 6
6

III.

This Court will uphold an order of the NLRB unless it 

“has no rational basis or is unsupported by substantial 

evidence.” Bally’s Park Place, Inc. v. NLRB, 646 F.3d 929, 

935 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. 

NLRB, 879 F.2d 939, 942 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (internal quotation 

marks omitted)). In the present case, the NLRB’s order was 

premised on its finding that there was no dispute concerning 

whether World Color’s hat policy facially prohibited 

employees from wearing hats bearing union insignia. As 

discussed above, this finding has no basis in the record before 

the agency. Although the policy required employees to wear 

a Quad hat rather than any other hat – including a union hat –

the company argued that it allowed employees to “bear union 

insignia” on the Quad hat by accessorizing it in an appropriate 

manner. We therefore grant the petition for review and 

remand to the NLRB for reconsideration. The NLRB’s 

application for enforcement is consequently denied.

So ordered.

USCA Case #14-1028 Document #1532484 Filed: 01/16/2015 Page 6 of 6