On July 19, 2016, in Omni Commercial Lighting, Inc., a majority of the panel (Board) heading the NLRB's judicial functions held that an employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA when it terminated an employee for asserting he was entitled to compensation and benefits his union negotiated into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with other employers. Under the NLRB's Interboro doctrine, a single employee engages in NLRA-protected concerted activity when the employee invokes a right he honestly and reasonably believes is grounded in a CBA, which is an exception to the general requirement that concerted activity concern more than one employee. The NLRB and federal courts ordinarily apply the Interboro doctrine only in situations involving a CBA that covers the employee and his coworkers. The Board also held that the Interboro doctrine can apply to an employee who asserts he is entitled to compensation and benefits under a CBA his union negotiated with other employers. (364 N.L.R.B. No. 54 (July 19, 2016).)

Omni, a commercial service provider, hired Anthony Hopkins in August 2013. At the time of this interview with Omni, Hopkins worked for Nucore Electric under the International Brotherhood of Electricians Local 134 (IBEW) multi-employer maintenance CBA (MA). The MA was the most generous in wages and benefits of three multi-employer CBAs the union negotiated with local lighting and electrical contractors. When Hopkins was interviewed by Omni, however, it had no CBA with the union. During the interview, Omni asked Hopkins what compensation he demanded and verbally agreed it would compensate Hopkins at wage and benefit rates that were commensurate with those in the MA.

Subsequently, in December 2013, Omni and the union negotiated about Hopkins's employment terms and conditions and agreed that the union's lighting maintenance agreement (LMA), a less generous CBA than the MA, would cover Hopkins. Omni continued to pay Hopkins at the same rate he received when hired but adjusted his benefit contributions to the LMA rates. In June 2014, when Hopkins became aware that he was getting paid at a lower rate than the recently ratified MA, he claimed that he was entitled to be paid at the higher rate under the new MA. Omni advised Hopkins that he was covered by the LMA, summarized his wages and benefits, and noted that Hopkins was already getting paid more than the LMA required.

Hopkins questioned Omni management and the union, insisting they executed the wrong CBA. The union and Omni confirmed that the LMA, not the MA, covered him. Hopkins asserted to the union that the LMA did not cover the type of work he performed for Omni, and that the union business agent knew the union should have negotiated for his coverage under the MA. When Hopkins raised these arguments to Omni's general manager, the general manager fired him.

An NLRB Administrative Law Judge held that Hopkins's assertion that he should be compensated under the MA was concerted activity and, therefore, Omni violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA when it discharged him. Omni excepted to the ALJ's decision.

The Board majority (Chairman Pearce and Member Hirozawa) held that:

The Board majority noted that:

The Board majority found that Hopkins's belief about the other CBA was reasonable because, among other things:

Member Miscimarra dissented, noting that:

The Board majority's decision in Omni continues to expand the scope of activities that may be considered concerted activity. Under this expansion of the Interboro doctrine, an individual may engage in protected concerted activity by claiming a violation of the terms and conditions of a CBA the union has with other employers, rather than the CBA negotiated with the employer for that employee.