370 U.S. 9 (1962) (U.S. Supreme Court)
NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co.
Are non-union employees who engage in a spontaneous walkout to protest intolerable working conditions engaged in protected concerted activity under NLRA §7, such that their discharge constitutes an unfair labor practice under §8(a)(1), even if they did not first present a specific demand to the employer?
Section 7 of the NLRA protects employees' rights "to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection," regardless of union representation. Employer interference with, restraint, or coercion of those rights violates §8(a)(1). Concerted activity remains protected so long as it is undertaken for mutual aid or protection and is not otherwise unlawful, violent, disloyal, or so indefensible as to remove it from the Act's protection (e.g., sit-down occupation, sabotage, or breach of a no-strike clause). The NLRA does not require that employees first present a specific demand to management or act through formal channels before engaging in protected concerted activity.
Yes. The employees' collective walkout over intolerably cold working conditions was protected concerted activity under §7, and discharging them for that activity violated §8(a)(1). The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and directed enforcement of the NLRB's order.
Washington Aluminum is a bedrock case for understanding the contours of protected concerted activity in non-union workplaces. It clarifies that the NLRA safeguards spontaneous, informal collective action protesting working conditions, without requiring formal demands or union involvement. For law students, the case provides a clear doctrinal framework for analyzing §7 and §8(a)(1) issues, including the limits of protection (e.g., violence, disloyalty, property seizure, contractual waivers) and the role of the NLRB in identifying protected conduct. It also remains directly relevant to modern contexts, such as coordinated employee walkouts, petitions, and group complaints (including those made online), grounding much of today's protected-concerted-activity jurisprudence.