Bay-Wood Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., BAY-WOOD

Decision Date01 December 1981
Docket NumberBAY-WOOD,No. 80-1433,80-1433
Citation666 F.2d 1011
Parties108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3175, 92 Lab.Cas. P 13,144 INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

George T. Roumell, Jr., Stanley C. Moore, III, Riley & Roumell, P. C., Detroit, Mich., filed briefs for petitioner.

Milton E. Higgs, Higgs, Higgs & Barbee, P. C., Bay City, Mich., filed briefs and argued for petitioner.

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Kenneth B. Hipp, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, David A. Fleischer, Atty., filed briefs; David Marshall, Washington D.C., argued for respondent.

Before KEITH and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, * District judge.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Bay-Wood Industries, seeks review of a National Labor Relations Board decision finding that it violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.) when it discharged William Cederberg, a seasonal employee.

Cederberg was hired in August, 1978 as a laborer to work in its Bay City, Michigan wood fabricating plant. Assigned to the machine shop, Cederberg worked without complaint until mid-September when he complained of the dust and splinters spewing from the circular table saw he was operating. He requested and was given a mask and respirator to wear.

Several days later, on September 20, 1978, Cederberg was assigned to cut wood blocks on an overhead radial saw. After a set-up man demonstrated the saw, Cederberg took over and began to cut blocks as instructed. However, approximately forty-five minutes later, Cederberg complained to the foreman that the saw was unsafe. He stated that certain blocks cut poorly, causing his fingers to be jerked dangerously close to the blade. The foreman returned with Cederberg to the saw where he demonstrated again its proper operation. He left Cederberg with the admonition that if he, Cederberg, operated the machine in this manner and took his time, he would not need a safety guard. Furthermore, the foreman explained that the guard had been removed because it interfered with the saw's operation.

Cederberg again took up operation of the machine only to stop again a short time later because of his continuing fear for his fingers. Returning to the foreman's office, he stated he would not run the saw unless a guard was installed. There is some dispute as to the foreman's response but essentially Cederberg was told to go home. Cederberg returned the next day and briefly took up the issue with the plant supervisor. However, little was said and Cederberg left believing he had been discharged. The only further action Cederberg took was to register a complaint a short time afterwards with the local OSHA office.

The parties on review dispute whether the evidence indicates Cederberg was fired or quit. We need not resolve that question however, for assuming that Cederberg was fired, his dismissal did not violate the Act because it was not discriminatory of protected employee activities.

Section 7 of the Act grants employees the right to engage in "concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection" without fear of recrimination by their employers. 29 U.S.C. § 157. The purpose of this provision is to protect union activity in both its nascent and mature forms. The question then is whether the complaints and actions of Cederberg constitute "concerted activities" protected under section 7.

The uncontroverted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Ajax Paving Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 28 Julio 1983
    ...collective bargaining agreement. (emphasis supplied) 596 F.2d at 718. 3 See McLean Trucking, 689 F.2d at 608; Bay-Wood Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 666 F.2d 1011, 1013 (6th Cir.1981) (both cases citing ARO with approval). Most recently, this Court has expressed the notion that individual condu......
  • Ballinger v. Department of Social and Health Services
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 22 Agosto 1985
    ...is not protected under federal labor law. McLean Trucking Co. v. N.L.R.B., 689 F.2d 605 (6th Cir.1982); Bay-Wood Indus., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 666 F.2d 1011 (6th Cir.1981). Since the union representing plaintiffs did not endorse the walkout nor did plaintiffs seek the union's assistance in fili......
  • McLean Trucking Co. v. N.L.R.B.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 17 Septiembre 1982
    ...Section 7 of the Act is designed to protect union activity "in both its nascent and mature forms." Bay-Wood Industries, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 666 F.2d 1011, 1012 (6th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). Organized and protected complaints will often develop from the dissatisfaction of an individual empl......
  • N.L.R.B. v. MCI Min. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 16 Junio 1988
    ...to discharge employees about to engage in concerted activity protected by Chapter 7 was unlawful. In Bay-Wood Industries, Inc. v. NLRB, 666 F.2d 1011, 1012 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam), this Circuit held that Chapter 7 protects not only "mature" concerted activity, i.e., strikes, but also na......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT