AT&T Mobility, LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 2019

05-CA-178637 (N.L.R.B. Mar. 15, 2019)

Washington, DC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AT&T MOBILITY, LLC
and Case 05-CA-178637
MARCUS DAVIS
ORDER REMANDING1
On September 28, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Notice to
Show Cause why this case should not be remanded for further consideration under The
Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017). The General Counsel and the Charging Party
filed responses opposing remand, and the Respondent filed a response supporting
remand.
Having duly considered the matter,
IT IS ORDERED that this proceeding is remanded to Administrative Law Judge
Arthur J. Amchan for the preparation of a supplemental decision addressing the
complaint allegations in light of Boeing and setting forth credibility resolutions, findings
of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended Order. Copies of the supplemental

1 Member Emanuel is recused and did not participate in this proceeding.
2
decision shall be served on all parties, after which the provisions of Section 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations shall be applicable. 2
Dated, Washington, D.C., March 15, 2019.
By direction of the Board:
/s/ Roxanne Rothschild
Executive Secretary

2 The General Counsel requests that the Board dismiss, instead of remand, the allegation
regarding the Respondent’s maintenance of its Privacy of Communications policy, which
the General Counsel represents is lawful under Boeing. The Board denies this request
and remands the case to the judge in its entirety for further consideration, including, if
appropriate, dismissal of the maintenance allegation regarding the Privacy of
Communications policy.
Member McFerran observes that apart from whether the Respondent’s Privacy
Confidentiality Rule is facially lawful or unlawful under The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No.
154 (2017), there remains the separate question whether the Respondent’s threat to
discipline employees under the rule violated Sec. 8(a)(1) if the record establishes that the
rule “ha[d] been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.” Lutheran Heritage
Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 647 (2004).