Skip to main content

NLRB Clarifies What Constitutes Concerted Protected Activity Under the NLRA


Earlier this month, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a 3 - 1 decision in Alstate Maintenance, LLC in which the scope of what constitutes protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) was narrowed.  Under Section 7 of the NLRA, employees have a right to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”  However, the question of what constitutes protected concerted activity has become somewhat of a blurred line over the years as the NLRB has issued decisions which have made it difficult to differentiate between protected group action and unprotected individual action.  Notably, a 2015 decision in Whole Foods Market held that “activity by one individual is deemed concerted activity if undertaken in an effort to enforce the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement or in order to initiate or induce group action.”

In Alstate, a dispute arose over comments made by Trevor Greenbridge (“Greenbridge”), a skycap at JFK International Airport.  While working with three other skycaps outside one of the airport entrances, a supervisor approached Greenbridge and asked him to assist with a soccer team’s luggage.  Greenbridge remarked “We did a similar job a year prior and we didn’t receive a tip for it.”  Greenbridge was subsequently terminated, in part, for his comment about not being tipped.  A complaint was subsequently filed on Greenbridge’s behalf which argued he was unlawfully terminated in violation of the NLRA for engaging in protected concerted activity when he expressed concerns about not being tipped for a job assignment.  The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the complaint.  

In reviewing the matter, the NLRB affirmed the dismissal, relying in part upon two decisions from the 1980’s, Meyers Industries I and Meyers Industries II.  In those two decisions, the NLRB held that an individual employee that raises a workplace concern with a supervisor is engaged in protected concerted activity if there is evidence of actual “group activities”.  To meet this standard, there must be evidence of “prior or contemporaneous discussion of the concern between or among members of the workforce - warranting a finding that the employee was indeed bringing to the management’s attention a ‘truly group complaint,’ as opposed to a purely personal grievance.”  

In Alstate, the NLRB found that Greenbridge’s statement did not satisfy the standard set in Meyers.  In reaching this conclusion, the NLRB deviated from the Whole Foods Market’s reliance on the intent of the speaker (in this case Greenbridge) and instead relied on the overall effect and impact of the conduct.  Quite simply, making comments in front of coworkers or in a group setting, alone, does not make a statement concerted activity.  Instead, the totality of the circumstances must be considered to support a reasonable inference that in making the statement, the employee was seeking to initiate, induce, or prepare for group action.  As a result, Greenbridge’s comment was held to be a personal gripe rather than a group complaint brought to the attention of the supervisor.  Even though Greenbridge made his statement in front of coworkers and used the word “we” rather than “I”, that alone did not make the comments concerted activity as there was no evidence that Greenbridge was seeking to initiate, induce, or prepare for group action.  Further, the NLRB found there was insufficient evidence to establish that Greenbridge was acting in the interest of mutual aid or protection when he uttered his comment to the supervisor.  Consequently, his termination was found to not be in violation of the NLRA.

It is worth noting that the NLRB’s decision here overruled a 2011 decision in WorldMark by Wyndham in which the NLRB found “an employee who protests publicly in a group meeting is engaged in initiating group action”, even if that protest is made by and on behalf of the employee himself/herself.  What changed?  In part, the NLRB has taken on more of an employer friendly tilt in recent years, due in part to a Republican President taking office and nominating more employer friendly NLRB members.  I would expect similar rulings from the NLRB as the scope of what constitutes concerted protected activity is likely to be further narrowed with subsequent cases.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more