Prill v. National Labor Relations Board

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · Labor Law

Labor LawConcerted ActivityNLRA Section 7Unfair Labor PracticesNLRASection 7concerted activitymutual aid or protection

Facts

Prill worked as a truck driver for Meyers Industries and repeatedly complained to company personnel about faulty brakes on his assigned truck. Another driver, Gove, separately complained in Prill's presence that he would not drive the truck until the brakes were repaired, and management promised to fix them. After Prill later had an accident in Tennessee due in part to the brakes, he refused to move the truck in a manner he thought unsafe and obtained an official inspection that resulted in a citation prohibiting movement of the truck. Two days later, Meyers fired him because, according to a company officer, 'we can't have you calling the cops like this all the time.'

Issue

Was the Board's interpretation of Section 7 in Meyers II a reasonable one—namely, that an individual employee acts concertedly only when acting with or on the authority of coworkers, or in seeking to initiate, induce, or prepare for group action—and, if so, was that standard properly applied to Prill's conduct?

Rule

The Board may reasonably interpret Section 7 to require actual linkage between an individual employee's conduct and coworker involvement or contemplated group action before the conduct is 'concerted.' An employee acting solely by and on behalf of himself is not engaged in concerted activity merely because his conduct concerns workplace conditions or could benefit other employees.

🔒

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.

Elena Ruiz works at Lakefront Fabrication in Cleveland, Ohio. After noticing that the shop's ventilation system exposes everyone on her shift to fumes, she alone emails management and then files a complaint with a state safety office without first speaking to any coworker or attempting to organize anyone else.

If Lakefront fires Elena for making the complaint, is her conduct most likely protected as concerted activity under Section 7?

Explanation. The majority accepted the Board's rule that concertedness and mutual aid are separate inquiries. An individual employee is not engaged in concerted activity merely because the subject of the complaint could benefit coworkers. Protection depends on some actual linkage to other employees, such as acting with their authority, with their participation, to initiate or induce group action, or to present a truly group complaint. Elena acted alone and did not try to involve others, so her conduct would not be concerted under the majority's rule. (Derived from Prill v. National Labor Relations Board (n.d.).)