The issues at hand call in to question the protection of workers at Pencey Enterprises, as determined by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The two main parties in this case include Robert Ackley, a worker at Pencey Enterprises, and Spencer Antolini, a supervisor at Pencey Enterprises. The four main issues ask: Were the employees partaking in protected concerted activity? Was Ackley’s outburst towards his supervisor, Antolini, protected speech? Was Ackley provoked by Antolini? Did Ackley lose protection after spreading false information regarding employee wages relative to competitor wages?
1. Were the employees participating in protected concerted activity?
A.
One case that serves as precedent to this issue …show more content…
In Sullair P.T.O., Inc., Terry Lee Boyle was discharged for directing profane comments at Plant Controller Douglas Sommers, including calling him a “fucking poor manager.” The Court found that, due to the comment being directed at management, Boyle lost his protection under the Act, even though he was undisputedly engaged in concerted activity. Despite the norm for profane language within the plant, Boyle’s comment was insubordination, and Boyle admitted to his insubordination being the reason for his discharge. Therefore, the Court held that Boyle’s speech was unprotected and his discharge was clearly justified. In the case at bar, Ackley was discharged for his outburst directed towards Antolini, where he called him a “fuckin’ liar” (p. 4, l. 25) and a “motherfuckin’ son of a bitch.” (p.5, l. 3). This comment was directed towards management, and it shows that Ackley was being insubordinate. Therefore, it should be held that Ackley lost his protection under the Act and his discharge should be considered …show more content…
Nonetheless, the discussion of wages started by Fouty was an “integral and important part of the movement to organize a union which began several weeks before Fouty’s discharge.” Although the statements were untrue, the Board holds, “Employees do not forfeit the protection of the Act if, in discussing a matter of such vital common concern as wages, they give currency to inaccurate or incomplete information.” In particular, it is important to note that inaccurate information can still be protected so long as it is not done with malice or intention to falsify the statements. Therefore, Fouty was still protected under the Act, despite his inaccurate statements regarding
1. Were the employees participating in protected concerted activity?
A.
One case that serves as precedent to this issue …show more content…
In Sullair P.T.O., Inc., Terry Lee Boyle was discharged for directing profane comments at Plant Controller Douglas Sommers, including calling him a “fucking poor manager.” The Court found that, due to the comment being directed at management, Boyle lost his protection under the Act, even though he was undisputedly engaged in concerted activity. Despite the norm for profane language within the plant, Boyle’s comment was insubordination, and Boyle admitted to his insubordination being the reason for his discharge. Therefore, the Court held that Boyle’s speech was unprotected and his discharge was clearly justified. In the case at bar, Ackley was discharged for his outburst directed towards Antolini, where he called him a “fuckin’ liar” (p. 4, l. 25) and a “motherfuckin’ son of a bitch.” (p.5, l. 3). This comment was directed towards management, and it shows that Ackley was being insubordinate. Therefore, it should be held that Ackley lost his protection under the Act and his discharge should be considered …show more content…
Nonetheless, the discussion of wages started by Fouty was an “integral and important part of the movement to organize a union which began several weeks before Fouty’s discharge.” Although the statements were untrue, the Board holds, “Employees do not forfeit the protection of the Act if, in discussing a matter of such vital common concern as wages, they give currency to inaccurate or incomplete information.” In particular, it is important to note that inaccurate information can still be protected so long as it is not done with malice or intention to falsify the statements. Therefore, Fouty was still protected under the Act, despite his inaccurate statements regarding