Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC v. NLRB

── Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC v. NLRB ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 12, 2025 Decided April 28, 2026 No. 24-1277 ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC, PETITIONER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 69, INTERVENOR Consolidated with 24-1281 On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board Amber M. Rogers argued the cause for petitioner/cross- respondent. With her on the briefs was David C. Lonergan.  2 Barbara A. Sheehy, Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, argued the cause for respondent/cross-petitioner. On the brief were William B. Cowen, Acting General Counsel, Ruth E. Burdick, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Meredith Jason, Assistant General Counsel, Elizabeth A. Heaney, Supervisory Attorney, and Kellie Isbell, Senior Attorney. Hal K. Gillespie argued the cause and filed the brief for intervenor in support of respondent. Before: SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, MILLETT and RAO, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RAO. RAO, Circuit Judge: This case is about the balance between an employee’s right to speak out about matters connected to an ongoing labor dispute and an employer’s right to terminate employees who make disparaging public comments. See NLRB v. Loc. Union No. 1229, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 346 U.S. 464, 471–73 (1953) (“Jefferson Standard”). Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC terminated Bobby Reed after he gave disparaging testimony about Oncor’s products at a legislative hearing. The National Labor Relations Board found that Reed’s testimony was protected and that Oncor committed unfair labor practices. Because the Board misapplied the relevant standard and its conclusions are unsupported by substantial evidence, we grant Oncor’s petition for review and deny the Board’s cross-petition for enforcement. I. This is Oncor’s second petition for review arising from Reed’s termination, and we draw on the facts as recounted in  3 our previous opinion. See Oncor Elec. Delivery Co. LLC v. NLRB, 887 F.3d 488, 493–94, 496–97 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (“Oncor I”). Oncor is a Texas electric utility company. In 2008, Oncor began rolling out digital metering devices. The new smart meters monitored customers’ electrical usage remotely, eliminating the need for manual meter readings by utility technicians. This led to layoffs, raising concerns among unions representing utility workers. The smart meter rollout also received pushback from customers. In response to concerns about potential health impacts from the meters’ radio frequencies, the Texas Senate Business and Commerce Committee held a hearing in October 2012 to address smart meters’ effects on health. Among those who testified at the hearing was Oncor employee Bobby Reed. Reed was a “trouble man,” a technician who responds to power outages. He was also the chief spokesperson for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union Number 69 (the “Union”) in negotiations with Oncor to extend a collective bargaining agreement. The first negotiating session took place the day before the senate hearing. Reed told Oncor’s representatives that if they could not make a deal, he would testify about smart meters at the hearing. Oncor and the Union did not reach a deal, and Reed testified the next day. On the witness list, he stated he was representing “Self; IBEW Local 69.” While other witnesses identified as “for” or “against” smart meters, Reed signed up to testify “on” smart meters. Reed began his two-minute testimony by identifying himself