Snowflake, Inc., 375 NLRB No. 39, 20-CA-274626 (Published Board Decision)
The Board upheld a finding that a cloud computing company unlawfully fired an engineer for speaking up about a new internal policy governing how software changes were reviewed before being merged into the company's code.
The employee had recently stepped down from a supervisory role and become a non-management engineer. In that capacity, he raised concerns at a company meeting attended by managers and other employees, arguing that the company's new "API Change Policy" was vague, could be applied unfairly by the two people put in charge of approving changes, and could result in employees seeing their performance ratings and bonuses docked for failing to follow unclear procedures. Other employees voiced similar concerns before and after the meeting. He also intervened on behalf of coworkers in separate disputes about perceived bias in code review and mandatory testing requirements.
The Board agreed with the administrative law judge that this conduct was both concerted, meaning it reflected shared employee concerns rather than a purely personal gripe, and directed at improving a term or condition of employment, since managers had made clear that failing to follow the policy could lead to discipline. The Board rejected the company's argument that the policy was purely a business decision outside the reach of the NLRA, finding that it directly affected working conditions.
The Board also found that the company knew about the protected activity, since the employee's direct supervisor and other managers attended the meeting where the concerns were raised, and that the company harbored animus, pointing to messages in which managers described the employee's comments as disruptive and to the supervisor's later emails citing that same conduct as a reason for termination. The company failed to show it would have fired the employee regardless of his protected activity, as the ALJ found its stated performance-based reasons for the discharge were either false or not actually relied upon at the time. The Board ordered reinstatement, backpay, and related remedies, and rejected on procedural grounds the company's belated constitutional challenges to the Board's structure.
Significant Cases Cited
Meyers Industries, 281 NLRB 882 (1986): Defines concerted activity as including an employee bringing truly group complaints to management's attention, requiring some linkage to group action.
Peerless Publications, Inc., 283 NLRB 334 (1987): Rules or policies become terms and conditions of employment when violations carry express or implied penalties like discipline.
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Sets the burden-shifting framework for analyzing claims that an employer acted with unlawful motive, requiring the employer to prove it would have taken the same action absent protected activity.
Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022): Expanded the standard make-whole remedy to include compensation for other direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms beyond lost wages.
Moore Business Forms, Inc., 288 NLRB 796 (1988): An employer's prior tolerance of an employee's poor performance undermines a claim that performance alone would have led to discharge.
The Quartz Corp., 10-RD-374383 (Unpublished Board Decision)
The Board denied requests for review filed by both the employer and the petitioner challenging a regional director's decision to hold a decertification petition in abeyance under the Board's blocking charge policy. The Board found no substantial issues warranting review, explaining that its role was limited to assessing whether the regional director abused his discretion based on the information available at the time the blocking decision was made. The denial does not prevent the employer from later asking the regional director to unblock the petition if circumstances change, consistent with Starbucks Corp.
The Board noted that the regional director had acted consistently with Section 103.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, which governs the blocking charge policy. Two members wrote separately to note they were applying existing law without expressing a view on whether the underlying blocking policy was correctly decided. One member added that the Board's procedures require regional directors to continually reassess whether a pending unfair labor practice charge should keep blocking a petition, and suggested the Board should consider whether the current policy adequately accounts for the passage of time. He also urged that the single unfair labor practice charge still blocking the election be given priority in processing.
Significant Cases Cited
Starbucks Corp., 374 NLRB No. 141 (2026): Addressed a regional director's authority to reconsider a blocking determination and the process for filing a motion to unblock a petition after new events occur.
District Hospital Partners, LP D/B/a the George Washington University Hospital, 05-RD-384944 (Unpublished Board Decision)
The Board declined to review a regional director's decision to block a decertification petition filed against the District of Columbia Nurses Association. Both the employer and the petitioner had sought review, but the Board found their requests raised no substantial issues warranting a closer look.
In a footnote, the Board explained that the regional director had properly applied Section 103.20 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the provision governing the Board's blocking-charge policy, which allows a pending unfair labor practice charge to pause processing of a related representation petition. Two members, Chairman Murphy and Member Mayer, added that they were applying existing law for institutional consistency and were not weighing in on whether the blocking-charge policy itself was correctly decided.