420 U.S. 251 (1975) Cited 434 times 64 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer commits an unfair labor practice by compelling an employee to attend an investigatory meeting that could lead to discipline without allowing the employee to bring a union witness
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 Prill v. NLRB, 755 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1985), the D.C. Circuit remanded a case to the agency because "a regulation [was] based on an incorrect view of applicable law."
Noting that whether an employer action is labeled as “counseling” or “disciplinary” does not matter for § 8 purposes as long as the action tends to coerce against engaging in protected activity
Holding that an employee who called his employer a "racist," "b_____d," and "red-neck son-of-a-b___h" fell outside of § 7 because he committed acts "of such a serious character as to render [him] unfit for further service"
In Mushroom Transportation Co. v. NLRB, 330 F.2d 683, 685 (3d Cir. 1964), we held that to qualify as concerted activity "it must appear at the very least that [the conduct] was engaged in with the object of initiating or inducing or preparing for group action or that it had some relation to group action in the interest of the employees."
Balancing these competing principles and fully evaluating the facts to conclude that a work stoppage was protected activity when the employees took reasonable precautions to protect equipment even though the equipment was damaged