## Facts

- Richard Geer worked as a mechanic at a nonunion plant owned by Coca-Cola Co. Foods Division (the company).
- The company maintained an internal grievance procedure.
- Geer was placed in a training program for “roving mechanics,” then removed from the program and returned to his prior job; he believed the removal was unfair.
- Geer filed a grievance under the internal procedure; it was denied by his foreman, and plant manager Louderback upheld the denial.
- Geer wrote a long letter to Louderback’s superior repeating his complaint and including accusations against Louderback.
- Louderback called Geer to a meeting. The evidence about what was said conflicted, but the administrative law judge (ALJ) credited Geer’s account.
- According to Geer, Louderback angrily warned him: “If any talk gets around out there on that floor about this grievance and what it pertains and this meeting, I’m coming after you.”
- The ALJ interpreted the statement as both (1) forbidding Geer from discussing his grievance and the meeting with coworkers and (2) threatening retaliation if he did.
- The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) affirmed the ALJ and concluded the company violated NLRA § 8(a)(1) by threatening Geer and restraining his § 7 right to discuss his grievance with coworkers to seek their aid and support.
- The NLRB sought enforcement of its order in the Seventh Circuit; the company opposed enforcement, arguing there was no existing concerted activity.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer violates NLRA § 8(a)(1) by threatening retaliation to stop an employee from discussing a workplace grievance with coworkers for the purpose of seeking their aid and support.
2. Whether the NLRB may find unlawful interference with § 7 rights when the employer’s conduct is aimed at preventing concerted activity before it occurs.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit enforced the NLRB’s order.
- The court accepted the ALJ’s credited version of the meeting and the finding that Louderback’s remark could reasonably be understood as a threat and a directive not to discuss the grievance with coworkers.
- The court agreed the threatened discussions—talking with coworkers about the grievance to obtain their help—would fall within § 7’s protection for concerted activities for mutual aid or protection.
- The court rejected the company’s argument that there can be no § 8(a)(1) violation unless employees have already engaged in concerted activity; a threat that deters employees from initiating protected group action is itself interference.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 7 protects employees’ right to discuss workplace complaints with coworkers to obtain their aid and support, even in a nonunion workplace.
- NLRA § 8(a)(1) is violated when an employer’s words or conduct would reasonably tend to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of § 7 rights, including by threats of retaliation.
- The Act reaches employer interference intended to stop protected concerted activity before it begins; employees need not first complete or formalize group action for § 7 to be implicated.
- Courts generally accept ALJ credibility determinations and uphold NLRB findings supported by substantial evidence, including reasonable interpretations of workplace statements as coercive.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit enforced the NLRB’s cease-and-desist order because the plant manager’s warning that he would “come after” Geer if “any talk” about the grievance reached the floor could reasonably be understood as a threat designed to stop Geer from seeking coworker aid, and § 8(a)(1) prohibits such interference even when the employer acts to prevent concerted activity from developing.


National Labor Relations Board v. Coca-Cola Co. Foods Division, 670 F.2d 84 (1982)