Document: 370 U.S. 9 82 S.Ct. 1099 8 L.Ed.2d 298 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.WASHINGTON ALUMINUM COMPANY. No. 464. Argued April 10, 1962. Decided May 28, Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Robert R. Bair, Baltimore, Md., respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The Court Appeals Fourth Circuit, with Chief Judge Sobeloff dissenting, refused to enforce an order National Labor Relations Board directing respondent Washington Aluminum Company reinstate and make whole seven employees whom company had discharged leaving their work in machine shop without permission on claims that was too cold in.1 Because decision raises important questions affecting proper administration Act,2 we granted certiorari.3 2 Board's order, as shown by record its findings, rested upon these facts circumstances. is engaged fabrication aluminum products Maryland, a business having interstate aspects subject it regulation under Act. which worked not insulated number doors outside be opened frequently. An oil furnace located adjoining building chief source heat shop, although there were two gas-fired space heaters contributed lesser extent. produced units always satisfactory and, even prior day walkout involved here, several eight machinists who made up shift at complained from time company's foreman 'over working conditions.'4 3 January 5, 1959, extraordinarily unusually high winds low temperature 11 degrees followed 22. When came morning, they found bitterly cold, due only harsh weather, but also fact large broken down night before yet been put back into operation. As workers gathered just starting hour 7:30, one them, Caron, went office Jarvis, foreman, hoping warm himself but, instead, foreman's quarters uncomfortable rest shop. Caron Jarvis sat Jarvis' discussing how bitingly was, some other walked window 'huddled' together fashion caused exclaim '(i)f those fellows any guts all, would go home.' buzzer sounded few moments later, his place all 'huddled there, shaking little, cold.' then said workers, '* * Dave (Jarvis) told me if guts, home. I am going home, damned work.' asked what do after discussion among themselves, decided leave him. One testifying Board, summarized entire this way: 'And got thought good idea home; maybe could get brought plant way.'5 started leave, approached persuaded remain job. But six left practically body matter minutes 7:30 buzzer. 4 general arrived between 7:45 promptly informed him because cold. president approximately 8:20 a.m. learning walkout, immediately have gone, are terminate them.' After 'at great length' might effect employee discipline production, formalized discharge out giving orders affected should notified about immediately, either telephone, telegram or personally. This done. 5 On conduct concerted activity protest failure supply adequate such protected provision § 7 Act guarantees 'Employees shall right engage activities purpose collective bargaining mutual aid protection,'6 amounted unfair labor practice 8(a)(1) Act, forbids employers 'to interfere with, restrain, coerce exercise rights guaranteed section 7.'7 Acting authority 10(c) provides when employer has guilty can 'take affirmative action including reinstatement pay, will effectuate policies Act,'8 ordered previous positions them losses resulting unlawful termination employment. 6 In denying enforcement majority took position simply 'summarily employment' affording 'opportunity avoid stoppage granting concession demand,' did amount Act.9 basis, held no justification violating established rules jobs therefore exceeded power issuing here declares require pay suspended 'for cause.'10 We cannot agree necessarily lose merely present specific demand remedy condition find objectionable. language broad enough protect whether take before, after, same made. To compel interpret apply restricted suggested tend frustrate policy wrokers act better conditions. Indeed, indicated very case, interpretation burdens so effectively nullify protects. part small group wholly unorganized. They representative fact, kind grievances employer. Under circumstances, speak themselves best could. pointed above, repeatedly officials conditions These more less spontaneous individual pleas, unsupported threat protest, apparently gave little consideration now says treated nothing than 'the sort gripes summertime.' bitter however, finally workers' complaints concert effective considered. Having procedure full advantage unanimity negotiations company, men most direct course let know wanted warmer work. So, talking hope spotlight complaint bring improvement considered 'miserable' think justify holding required entitled protection 7. Although contends contrary, grow 'labor dispute' within plain meaning definition term 2(9) includes 'any controversy concerning terms, tenure employment *.'11 findings supported substantial evidence disturbed below, show running dispute over heating days—a culminated concertedly effort force improve already making every repair morning does change nature walkout. At most, indicate unnecessary unwise, long settled reasonableness decisions irrelevant determination exists not.12 Moreover, shows far unjustified own expressed statement emphasizes obvious—that is, coldness aggravated seemed like perfectly natural reasonable thing do. Nor accept contention admittedly rule forbade justifiable 'cause' discharging employees, separate apart against poorly heated plant. Section authorize our cases recognized employer.13 this, course, mean liberty punish man engaging And question purports permit prohibit plainly kinds stoppages until unless obtained. 10 It true activities, aspect case. fall normal categories unprotected unlawful,14 violent15 breach contract.16 Court's recent pronouncement denied characterized 'indefensible' disloyalty deemed carry legitimate activities.17 classified standard conduct. trying testimony showed case unquestionably correct modern labor-management legislation treats bad tolerated humane civilized society ours. hold correctly interpreted applied circumstances error refuse order. judgment reversed cause remanded court directions entirety. 12 Reversed remanded. 13 FRANKFURTER WHITE 291 F.2d 869. another requiring bargain collectively Industrial Union Marine & Shipbuilding Workers America, AFL—CIO, certified employees. Since Union's status turns ballots cast election four enforceability depends validity discharges being challenged principal Our govern refusal-to-bargain issue. 49 Stat. 449, amended, 61 136, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., U.S.C.A. seq. 368 924, 366, 189. finding issue: 'We rely, inter alia, credited Heinlein, George Respondent's foremen conditions, *.' 126 N.L.R.B. 1410, 1411. Trial Examiner expressly relied it. N.L.R.B., 452, 140, 157, 157. follows: self-organization, form, join, assist organizations, through representatives choosing, protection, refrain except extent may agreement membership organization authorized 8(a)(3).' 158(a)(1), 158(a)(1). 453—454, 146—147, 160(c), 160(c). 877. 'No discharged, payment cause.' 453 454, 450, 137—138, 152(9), 152(9). (Emphasis supplied.) 'The wisdom unwisdom men, lack it, attributing unreasonable arbitrary attitude connection negotiations, determine whether, struck, consequence current dispute.' v. Mackay Radio Telegraph Co., 304 333, 344, 58 904, 910, L.Ed. 1381. See, e.g. Jones Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 1, 45, 57 615, 628, 81 893. 14 Southern Steamship Co. 316 31, 62 886, 86 1246. 15 Fansteel Metallurgical 306 240, 59 490, 83 627. 16 Sands Manufacturing 332, 508, 682. 17 Local 1229, International Brotherhood Electrical Workers, 346 464, 477, 74 172, 179, 98 195.

Category: 6