NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Labor Law

Labor LawNLRA Section 7concerted activitycollective bargaining agreementsSection 7Section 8(a)(1)concerted activitiescollective-bargaining agreement

Facts

James Brown, a truckdriver covered by a collective-bargaining agreement between City Disposal and Teamsters Local 247, was assigned to drive truck No. 244 after his regular truck became unavailable. Brown refused because he honestly and reasonably believed truck No. 244 had faulty brakes, based on events from the prior weekend and his observations, and he explained that safety concern to two supervisors. The collective-bargaining agreement stated that the employer could not require employees to operate unsafe vehicles and that refusal to operate such equipment would not violate the agreement unless unjustified. Brown was discharged later that day and later filed both a grievance and an unfair labor practice charge.

Issue

Whether an individual employee's honest and reasonable assertion of a right grounded in a collective-bargaining agreement constitutes "concerted activit[y]" within the meaning of § 7 of the NLRA. More specifically, the question was whether Brown's refusal to drive a truck he reasonably believed unsafe, without expressly citing the contract, was concerted activity.

Rule

An individual employee's reasonable and honest invocation of a right provided for in a collective-bargaining agreement is concerted activity under § 7 of the NLRA, so long as the statement or action is reasonably directed toward enforcement of that collectively bargained right. The employee need not expressly cite the collective-bargaining agreement, but the complaint must in fact refer to a reasonably perceived violation of the agreement and be reasonably clear to the employer.

🔒

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.

Tanya Ruiz works for Lakefront Packaging in Cleveland under a collective-bargaining agreement stating that employees cannot be required to work more than 12 consecutive hours without an 8-hour rest period. Near the end of a 14-hour stretch, her supervisor orders her to stay another 3 hours, and Tanya refuses, saying, "I'm not supposed to keep working this long." She is fired on the spot.

Was Tanya's refusal most likely concerted activity under § 7?

Explanation. The majority accepted the Interboro doctrine: a lone employee engages in concerted activity when she honestly and reasonably invokes a right created by a collective-bargaining agreement and her action is directed toward enforcing that right. Section 7 is not limited to simultaneous group action, and a formal grievance is not required. (Derived from NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc. (1984).)