Client Alerts & Insights
NLRB Overturns a Trump-Era Precedent; Employers Cannot Ban Union Insignia
August 31, 2022
Authored By:
On August 29, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a precedent-shifting decision ruling that it was unlawful for Tesla Inc. to prohibit employees from wearing shirts bearing union insignia. Tesla Inc., 370 NLRB No. 131 (2022).
In the 3-2 ruling, the Board reestablished old precedent confirming that when an employer interferes in any way with its employees’ right to display union insignia, the employer must prove “special circumstances” that justify its interference. See Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 801-803 (1945). Previously, employers were not bound by the “special circumstance” test when evaluating the lawfulness of an employer’s dress code policy that partially restricted the display of union buttons and insignia. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 146 (2019). The Board in Wal-Mart found that “[w]here…the [e]mployer maintains a facially neutral rule that limits the size and/or appearance of union buttons and insignia that employees can wear but does not prohibit them,” the Board should apply a different test articulated in Boeing rather than the “special circumstances” test. Under Boeing, if an employer’s facially lawful rule or policy, when reasonably interpreted, would potentially interfere with the exercise of employees’ Section 7 rights, the Board must balance the following two factors: “(i) the nature and extent of the potential impact on NLRA rights, and (ii) legitimate justifications associated with the rule.” Id.
The Board in Tesla found that the decision in Wal-Mart upset the “proper balance” in evaluating workers’ rights to display union insignia and employers’ rights to control their workforce dress code policies. In the new ruling, the Board evaluated Tesla’s dress code under Republic Aviation finding that Tesla’s dress code policy—which allowed production associates to wear only black shirts with the Tesla logo or, on occasion, all-black shirts—interfered with associates’ Section 7 rights to display union insignia. Accordingly, Tesla’s dress code policy was presumptively invalid, and Tesla had the burden to establish “special circumstances” to justify its interference. The Board has found special circumstances that justify employer restrictions on union insignia and apparel in many different circumstances, such as “when their display may jeopardize employee safety, damage machinery or products, exacerbate employee dissension, unreasonably interfere with a public image that the employer has established, or when necessary to maintain decorum and discipline among employees.” Tesla at 13 (citing Komatsu America Corp., 342 NLRB 649, 650 (2004)). Tesla argued that its policy aimed to prevent employees’ clothing or apparel from damaging or mutilating its vehicles. Specifically, Tesla provided testimony indicating that a raised metal emblem caused mutilation to a vehicle. Nonetheless, the Board found that Tesla did not demonstrate “special circumstances” that justify prohibiting production associates from wearing black union shirts as cotton shirts would not jeopardize employee safety or damage the production of vehicles. Further, the Board indicated that Tesla did show a legitimate interest in preventing raised metal emblems on shirts from causing damage; however, Tesla’s dress code policy “goes far beyond simply prohibiting employees from wearing shirts with metal emblems and therefore is not narrowly tailored to address that concern as required under the special circumstances test.” The Board ultimately found Tesla in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
In light of Tesla, employers should review their dress code policy and any “special circumstances” that may permit restricting the display of union insignia in the workplace to evaluate whether the policy complies with this revival of a less restrictive policy.
For more information, please contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
W. Eric Baisden at ebaisden@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4676.
Adam Primm at aprimm@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4451.
Brad Wenclewicz at bwenclewicz@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.6191.
Latest News
Ohio Board of Professional Conduct Issues Ohio Ethics Guide on Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers
Dispensary tip practices—especially involving hybrid roles like “Leads” or Agents-in-Charge—are increasingly being scrutinized as unlawful as a surge in wage-and-hour lawsuits claim that managers or employees with supervisory duties are improperly sharing in tips meant for front-line staff.
Connecticut Broadens Data Privacy Act Requirements Effective July 1, 2026
Key Takeaways Revised Applicability Scope and Exemptions Effective July 1, 2026, the CTDPA’s existing applicability thresholds are reduced, resulting in …
SCOTUS Extends FAA Exemption to Last-Mile Drivers: What the Flowers Foods decision means for motor carriers and transportation providers
On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, expanding reach of the Federal Arbitration Act’s (“FAA”) Section 1 exemption for transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. The Court held that a worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify for Section 1’s exemption without crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do. This decision has significant implications for motor carriers and transportation providers that rely on arbitration agreements to resolve disputes with independent contractors and employee drivers.
Beyond the Buzzwords: State AGs Put Enforcement Muscle Behind Algorithmic Pricing and Age Verification Crackdowns
State AGs are doubling down—across party lines—on consumer protection, with a sharp focus on vulnerable groups and increased scrutiny of algorithmic pricing models and online age verification practices.