National Labor Relations Board v. Washington Aluminum Company, 464

Citation8 L.Ed.2d 298,82 S.Ct. 1099,370 U.S. 9
Decision Date28 May 1962
Docket NumberNo. 464,464
PartiesNATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON ALUMINUM COMPANY
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Robert R. Bair, Baltimore, Md., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with Chief Judge Sobeloff dissenting, refused to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board directing the respondent Washington Aluminum Company to reinstate and make whole seven employees whom the company had discharged for leaving their work in the machine shop without permission on claims that the shop was too cold to work in.1 Because that decision raises important questions affecting the proper administration of the National Labor Relations Act,2 we granted certiorari.3

The Board's order, as shown by the record and its findings, rested upon these facts and circumstances. The respondent company is engaged in the fabrication of aluminum products in Baltimore, Maryland, a business having interstate aspects that subject it to regulation under the National Labor Relations Act. The machine shop in which the seven discharged employees worked was not insulated and had a number of doors to the outside that had to be opened frequently. An oil furnace located in an adjoining building was the chief source of heat for the shop, although there were two gas-fired space heaters that contributed heat to a lesser extent. The heat pro- duced by these units was not always satisfactory and, even prior to the day of the walkout involved here, several of the eight machinists who made up the day shift at the shop had complained from time to time to the company's foreman 'over the cold working conditions.'4

January 5, 1959, was an extraordinarily cold day for Baltimore, with unusually high winds and a low temperature of 11 degrees followed by a high of 22. When the employees on the day shift came to work that morning, they found the shop bitterly cold, due not only to the unusually harsh weather, but also to the fact that the large oil furnace had broken down the night before and had not as yet been put back into operation. As the workers gathered in the shop just before the starting hour of 7:30, one of them, a Mr. Caron, went into the office of Mr. Jarvis, the foreman, hoping to warm himself but, instead, found the foreman's quarters as uncomfortable as the rest of the shop. As Caron and Jarvis sat in Jarvis' office discussing how bitingly cold the building was, some of the other machinists walked by the office window 'huddled' together in a fashion that caused Jarvis to exclaim that '(i)f those fellows had any guts at all, they would go home.' When the starting buzzer sounded a few moments later, Caron walked back to his working place in the shop and found all the other machinists 'huddled there, shaking a little, cold.' Caron then said to these workers, '* * * Dave (Jarvis) told me if we had any guts, we would go home. * * * I am going home, it is too damned cold to work.' Caron asked the other workers what they were going to do and, after some discussion among themselves, they decided to leave with him. One of these workers, testifying before the Board, summarized their entire discussion this way: 'And we had all got together and thought it would be a good idea to go home; maybe we could get some heat brought into the plant that way.'5 As they started to leave, Jarvis approached and persuaded one of the workers to remain at the job. But Caron and the other six workers on the day shift left practically in a body in a matter of minutes after the 7:30 buzzer.

When the company's general foreman arrived between 7:45 and 8 that morning, Jarvis promptly informed him that all but one of the employees had left because the shop was too cold. The company's president came in at approximately 8:20 a.m. and, upon learning of the walkout, immediately said to the foreman, '* * * if they have all gone, we are going to terminate them.' After discussion 'at great length' between the general foreman and the company president as to what might be the effect of the walkout on employee discipline and plant production, the president formalized his discharge of the workers who had walked out by giving orders at 9 a.m. that the affected workers should be notified about their discharge immediately, either by telephone, telegram or personally. This was done.

On these facts the Board found that the conduct of the workers was a concerted activity to protest the company's failure to supply adequate heat in its machine shop, that such conduct is protected under the provision of § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act which guarantees that 'Employees shall have the right * * * to engage in * * * concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,'6 and that the discharge of these workers by the company amounted to an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(1) of the Act, which forbids employers 'to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.'7 Acting under the authority of § 10(c) of the Act, which provides that when an employer has been guilty of an unfair labor practice the Board can 'take such affirmative action including reinstatement of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this Act,'8 the Board then ordered the company to reinstate the discharged workers to their previous positions and to make them whole for losses resulting from what the Board found to have been the unlawful termination of their employment.

In denying enforcement of this order, the majority of the Court of Appeals took the position that because the workers simply 'summarily left their place of employment' without affording the company an 'opportunity to avoid the work stoppage by granting a concession to a demand,' their walkout did not amount to a concerted activity protected by § 7 of the Act.9 On this basis, they held that there was no justification for the conduct of the workers in violating the established rules of the plant by leaving their jobs without permission and that the Board had therefore exceeded its power in issuing the order involved here because § 10(c) declares that the Board shall not require reinstatement or back pay for an employee whom an employer has suspended or discharged 'for cause.'10

We cannot agree that employees necessarily lose their right to engage in concerted activities under § 7 merely because they do not present a specific demand upon their employer to remedy a condition they find objectionable. The language of § 7 is broad enough to protect concerted activities whether they take place before, after, or at the same time such a demand is made. To compel the Board to interpret and apply that language in the restricted fashion suggested by the respondent here would only tend to frustrate the policy of the Act to protect the right of wrokers to act together to better their working conditions. Indeed, as indicated by this very case, such an interpretation of § 7 might place burdens upon employees so great that it would effectively nullify the right to engage in concerted activities which that section protects. The seven employees here were part of a small group of employees who were wholly unorganized. They had no bargaining representative and, in fact, no representative of any kind to present their grievances to their employer. Under these circumstances, they had to speak for themselves as best they could. As pointed out above, prior to the day they left the shop, several of them had repeatedly complained to company officials about the cold working conditions in the shop. These had been more or less spontaneous individual pleas, unsupported by any threat of concerted protest, to which the company apparently gave little consideration and which it now says the Board should have treated as nothing more than 'the same sort of gripes as the gripes made about the heat in the summertime.' The bitter cold of January 5, however, finally brought these workers' individual complaints into concert so that some more effective action could be considered. Having no bargaining representative and no established procedure by which they could take full advantage of their unanimity of opinion in negotiations with the company, the men took the most direct course to let the company know that they wanted a warmer place in which to work. So, after talking among themselves, they walked out together in the hope that this action might spotlight their complaint and bring about some improvement in what they considered to be the 'miserable' conditions of their employment. This we think was enough to justify the Board's holding that they were not required to make any more specific demand than they did to be entitled to the protection of § 7.

Although the company contends to the contrary, we think that the walkout involved here did grow out of a 'labor dispute' within the plain meaning of the definition of that term in § 2(9) of the Act, which declares that it includes 'any controversy concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment * * *.'11 The findings of the Board, which are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
307 cases
  • Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 10-CA-038804
    • United States
    • National Labor Relations Board
    • October 28, 2014
    ...violates Section 8(a)(1) by enforcing a rule that unlawfully restricts Section 7 rights. See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9, 16-17 (1962); Republic Aviation Corp., 324 U.S. 793 (1945). That is precisely what the Respondent did through its motion to dismiss. Moreover,......
  • Superior Farming Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 1984
    ...v. Transportation Management Corp. (1983) 462 U.S. 393, 103 S.Ct. 2469, 2472, 76 L.Ed.2d 667; Labor Bd. v. Washington Aluminum Co. (1962) 370 U.S. 9, 16-17, 82 S.Ct. 1099, 1103-1104, 8 L.Ed.2d 298.) Even in the so-called "dual motive" case, that is, where the employer arguably possessed bot......
  • Mobile Exploration v. NLRB
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • December 23, 1999
    ...Producing, U.S., Inc., 325 NLRB No. 18, 1997 WL 713342, at *1, *3 (Nov. 8, 1997); see generally NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9, 16, 82 S. Ct. 1099, 1104, 8 L. Ed. 2d 298 (1962) (holding that 7 prohibits dismissal only for those activities that are both "concerted" and "protecte......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Weingarten, Inc 8212 1363
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1975
    ...right to act 'in concert' in employer interviews, also exists in the absence of a recognized union. Cf. NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9, 82 S.Ct. 1099, 8 L.Ed.2d 298 (1962). 2. In one earlier case the Board had found a § 8(a)(1) violation in the employer's refusal to admit a uni......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Old Fashioned Protected Concerted Activity Stirred Up With A Twist
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • June 23, 2014
    ...Court ruled that this kind of a strike is concerted activity which is legally protected under the Act. NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9 (1962). In the absence of violence or other untoward conduct, strikers may not be punished or discharged for engaging in such a strike. The work......
8 books & journal articles
  • Dynamex Is Dynamite, but Epic Systems Is Its Foil - Chamber of Commerce: The Sleeper in the Trilogy.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 83 No. 4, September 2018
    • September 22, 2018
    ...Nov. 13, 2018). (172.) 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). (173.) Id. (174.) Id. at 1620. (175.) See id. at 1628 (citing NLRB v. Wash. Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9 (176.) 9 U.S.C. [section][section] 1-14 (2018). (177.) Epic Sys. Corp., 138 S. Ct. at 1619. (178.) Id. (179.) Id. (180.) Id. at 1630. (181.) Id......
  • Problems and solutions to corporate blogging: model corporate blogging guidelines.
    • United States
    • The Journal of High Technology Law Vol. 7 No. 2, July 2007
    • July 1, 2007
    ...entire employee population. Halbert, supra note 18, at 53 n. 74. (31.) 29 U.S.C. [sections] 157. (32.) See N.L.R.B. v. Wash. Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9 (1962) (discharge of seven non-union workers who walked off job to protest extremely cold workplace temperatures violated [sections] 7 of the......
  • Labor Law - The Law of a Balanced Society: A Reply to Professor Epstein
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 41-1, January 2013
    • December 1, 2013
    ...OF THE TWENTIETH-CENTURY FACTORY SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES 1880–1920, at 35 (2d ed. 1995). 55 See, e.g. , NLRB v. Wash. Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9, 10, 17–18 (1962) (recognizing unorganized workers’ rights to walk out to protest cold conditions in shop); Parexel Int’l, LLC, 356 N.L.R.B. No.......
  • Social isolation and American workers: employee blogging and legal reform.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Vol. 20 No. 2, March 2007
    • March 22, 2007
    ...A Management Perspective, 20 B.C. L. REV. 4, 22-26 (1978). (131.) See infra Parts V.B-C. (132.) See NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9 (1962) (finding concerted activity where seven employees walked off their jobs to protest cold temperatures on the shop (133.) See Esco Elevators, ......
  • 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