Law stated as of 31 Aug 2023 • USA (National/Federal)
In Component Bar Products, Inc., the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held that a worker who calls his colleague to warn him that his job is in jeopardy has engaged in inherently concerted protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
On November 8, 2016, in Component Bar Products, Inc., a majority of the panel (Board) heading the NLRB's judicial functions held that a worker who called his colleague to warn him that his job was in jeopardy engaged in inherently concerted protected activity under the NLRA. This is the third time in recent years that the NLRB has deemed a subject of discussion inherently concerted, even though federal appeals courts have uniformly rejected the Board's earlier adoptions of the evidentiary shortcuts and presumptions that are part and parcel of the inherently concerted activity theory. (364 N.L.R.B. No. 140 (Nov. 8, 2016).)
James Stout worked as a quality technician for Component Bar Products, Inc., an automotive parts manufacturing company. Component Bar maintained a personal conduct policy in its employee handbook which subjected employees to discipline or termination for an offense.
Stout saw that a co-worker (Burgess) was not at work. Burgess, who had recently resigned and then rescinded his resignation, was sick but had not called Component Bar to alert his supervisors to his absence. A supervisor (Yeakey) told Stout that Burgess no longer worked there. Stout called Burgess, asked why he had not called in to tell his superiors that he was sick, and told him "I don’t think you have a job and [Yeakey's] upset with you." Burgess hung up on Stout and called Component Bar, stating that he did not appreciate an employee calling him to tell him he was fired.
Component Bar terminated Stout's employment for "misconduct" because he had involved himself in another employee's personnel activities. The employer later claimed that Stout also violated a company policy concerning cell phone use while working.
An NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that Stout's discharge violated section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA because his warning to Burgess constituted protected concerted activity.
The Board majority (Chairman Pearce and Member McFerran) affirmed that:
Stout engaged in concerted activity under Meyers I and Meyers II by alerting Burgess that his job was in jeopardy and attempting to help Burgess keep his job; and
Component Bar unlawfully terminated Stout for engaging in concerted activity.
continuing to consider notice of a termination for an unlawful reason a separate unfair labor practice (ULP) from that termination under Double Eagle (341 N.L.R.B. 112 (2004). Miscimarra views the notice part of the termination act and therefore the associated ULP as cumulative; and