City Disposal Systems, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Labor Law

Labor Lawconcerted activityprotected activitycollective bargaining agreementunsafe equipmentsection 8(a)(1)NLRASection 8(a)(1)

Facts

Brown, a City Disposal truck driver covered by a collective bargaining agreement, knew that truck 244 had experienced brake failure on Saturday, nearly causing a collision, and he was present when the defect was reported to company mechanics. On Monday, after Brown's usual truck 245 became inoperable and could not be repaired that day, supervisors told him to drive truck 244 instead. Brown refused, stating that truck 244 had brake-related problems and asking whether management would put garbage ahead of the safety of the men. City Disposal discharged him later that day and refused to reinstate him.

Issue

Whether substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Brown's refusal to drive truck 244 was concerted activity because it was based on an honest and reasonable belief that he was being required to perform a task forbidden by the collective bargaining agreement. The court also considered whether that refusal, though concerted, was protected rather than barred by the agreement's no-strike clause.

Rule

An employee engages in concerted activity when his statement or action is based on a reasonable and honest belief that he is being, or has been, asked to perform a task he is not required to perform under the collective bargaining agreement, and the statement or action is reasonably directed toward enforcement of a collectively bargained right. The belief must be both subjectively honest and objectively reasonable, but it need not be correct. Under this agreement, an employee could refuse to operate equipment reported unsafe until the employer demonstrated that the mechanical department had approved it as safe.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Omar Vega drives delivery trucks for Lakefront Parcel Hauling under a collective bargaining agreement stating that employees need not operate unsafe vehicles and that no driver may be required to use equipment reported unsafe by any employee until the mechanical department approves it as safe. Omar knows a trailer's steering linkage was reported defective the night before, and when a supervisor orders him to take it out without mentioning any mechanical approval, Omar refuses.

Is Omar's refusal most likely concerted activity under the governing rule?

Explanation. A single employee may engage in concerted activity by invoking a collectively bargained right. The rule requires that the employee act on an honest and reasonable belief that he is being asked to perform a task not required by the agreement, and that his conduct be reasonably directed toward enforcing that right. Omar's refusal fits that framework even though he acted alone and did not quote the contract. (Derived from City Disposal Systems, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (n.d.).)