Lexplug logoLexplug

NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.

Supreme Court of United States
465 U.S. 822 (1984)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An individual employee's honest and reasonable invocation of a right grounded in a collective bargaining agreement constitutes 'concerted activity' under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.


Facts:

  • City Disposal Systems, Inc. had a collective-bargaining agreement with a Teamsters union local, which covered its truck drivers, including James Brown.
  • Article XXI of the agreement stated that the employer would not require employees to operate unsafe vehicles and that an employee's refusal to do so would not violate the agreement unless the refusal was unjustified.
  • On May 12, 1979, Brown witnessed a fellow driver having serious brake problems with truck No. 244.
  • On May 14, 1979, Brown's assigned truck developed a mechanical issue and could not be repaired that day.
  • A supervisor, Otto Jasmund, ordered Brown to drive truck No. 244 instead.
  • Brown refused to drive truck No. 244, explaining that he knew it had faulty brakes and was unsafe, though he did not explicitly mention the collective-bargaining agreement.
  • After an argument with two supervisors about the truck's safety, Brown was told to go home.
  • Later that day, City Disposal Systems, Inc. formally discharged Brown.

Procedural Posture:

  • James Brown filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
  • An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the NLRB found that Brown's discharge was an unfair labor practice because his refusal to work was protected concerted activity.
  • The full NLRB adopted the ALJ's findings and ordered City Disposal to reinstate Brown with backpay.
  • The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for enforcement of its order.
  • The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (an intermediate appellate court) denied enforcement, finding that Brown's action was taken solely on his own behalf and was not concerted activity.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Circuit Courts of Appeals on this issue.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an individual employee's honest and reasonable assertion of a right provided for in a collective bargaining agreement constitute 'concerted activity' within the meaning of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Brennan

Yes. An individual employee's honest and reasonable assertion of a right grounded in a collective-bargaining agreement is 'concerted activity' protected by Section 7 of the NLRA. The court deferred to the NLRB's long-standing 'Interboro doctrine,' which holds that such an action is an extension of the concerted process that created the agreement itself. When an individual invokes a collectively bargained right, he is not acting alone but is bringing to bear the power of all his fellow employees who are party to the agreement. This enforcement of the contract is an integral part of the continuous process of collective bargaining. The employee need not explicitly reference the collective bargaining agreement, so long as the nature of the complaint makes it clear that a contractual right is being invoked.


Dissenting - Justice O'Connor

No. An individual's self-interested action is not 'concerted activity' simply because the right asserted is found within a collective-bargaining agreement. The majority's holding improperly conflates an individual contract claim with concerted group action. This interpretation risks transforming every alleged contract violation into an unfair labor practice, thereby giving the NLRB broad jurisdiction over contract enforcement that Congress intended to leave to the standard grievance-arbitration processes and the courts. James Brown acted solely for his personal benefit and did not attempt to induce group action; therefore, his conduct was not 'concerted' in any reasonable sense of the term.



Analysis:

This decision formally adopts the NLRB's 'Interboro doctrine' at the Supreme Court level, significantly broadening the definition of 'concerted activity' under the NLRA. By extending protection to individual employees who invoke CBA rights, the Court lowers the threshold for what constitutes protected activity, as an employee no longer needs to demonstrate that they are acting with or on behalf of others. This strengthens the power of collective bargaining agreements as a tool for individual employee protection and solidifies the view that enforcement of a CBA is an inseparable part of the collective bargaining process itself.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc. (1984) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.