465 U.S. 822 (1984) Cited 206 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "lone employee's invocation of a right grounded in his collective-bargaining agreement is . . . a concerted activity in a very real sense" because the employee is in effect reminding his employer of the power of the group that brought about the agreement and that could be reharnessed if the employer refuses to respect the employee's objection
In NLRB v. Interboro Contractors, Inc., 388 F.2d 495, 500 (2d Cir. 1967), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated that the efforts of an individual employee acting alone to enforce the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement may be deemed "concerted," and thus protected, at least when the individual's interpretation of the agreement has a reasonable basis.
Upholding Board's determination that discharge for insubordination was pretextual where employer "refused to discharge" another employee also accused of insubordination
In Maxwell, however, we specifically pointed out that the employer did not argue that the employee's attempts to enforce the provisions of the contract were not a protected activity.
In National Labor Relations Board v. John S. Swift Co., 277 F.2d 641; National Labor Relations Board v. Knight Morley Corp., 251 F.2d 753; National Labor Relations Board v. Southern Silk Mills, 209 F.2d 155; National Labor Relations Board v. J.I. Case Co., 198 F.2d 919.
In Harnischfeger, while the employer and the certified union were in the process of negotiations, a group of employees walked off their jobs "to put a little heat on the [employer] and see what they were going to do."