Facts

California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), a federally funded research and development center located in Pasadena, employs scientists and engineers.

In October 2007, NASA modified its contract with Caltech to require background checks of JPL employees for them to have access to JPL's site. NASA's rule was a response to the Department of Commerce's implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12).

On April 20, 2007, JPL management announced that it was beginning the process for conducting background investigations of employees. JPL notified employees that if they did not want to surrender information for the purpose of background checks, they could not work. Thus, approximately 28 employees filed suit against Caltech and NASA for violating their privacy rights. Caltech was dismissed from the case, and the case against NASA went up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that NASA's rule did not violate the employees' privacy rights.

Following the Supreme Court's ruling, JPL's director sent a message to employees and nonemployees announcing the decision. Several plaintiffs in the case against NASA decided to get more information to other employees. They sent messages from their JPL email accounts to more than 7,200 recipients (including employees, outside organizations, and NASA) regarding their views on the dismissal of their lawsuit, the decision's impact, and NASA's arguments to the Supreme Court. These employees were consequently disciplined, giving rise to an unfair labor practice charge against JPL.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The employees claimed that they were unlawfully disciplined for engaging in protected, concerted activity. Further, they claimed that JPL maintained an unlawful rule, namely that employees must avoid actions that could adversely affect the independence and objectivity of their judgment, interfere with the timely and effective performance of their duties, or discredit JPL.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
JPL denied that its actions in disciplining the employees violated the National Labor Relations Act because NASA's required background checks were not a term or condition of their employment relationship with JPL and so were not a protected subject matter under the Act. JPL further contended that the employees violated JPL's legitimate policies against spamming, lobbying, and using NASA's email system and their JPL positions to advance a personal agenda. Finally, JPL contended that one employee's email disparaged NASA (JPL's sole sponsor) and NASA's officials, and so it was sufficiently disloyal to fall outside the protection of the Act.

Result

The administrative law judge found that JPL engaged in unfair labor practices by issuing written warnings to employees because they engaged in protected concerted activities. The judge ordered JPL to cease and desist from disciplining or discriminating against employees for engaging in such activities. As to the challenge to JPL's ethics and business conduct policy, the administrative law judge found that the policy did not violate the Act and dismissed that allegation.