## Facts

- City Disposal Systems, Inc. employed union-represented truck drivers under a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA).
- The CBA provided that employees could refuse to operate unsafe equipment and that such refusal would not violate the agreement unless unjustified.
- James Brown, a truck driver, refused to drive a garbage truck he believed had faulty brakes; his belief was found honest and reasonable.
- City Disposal discharged Brown for refusing to drive the truck.
- The union declined to process Brown’s grievance.
- Brown filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, alleging discharge for protected activity under NLRA § 7.
- An ALJ and the NLRB applied the Interboro doctrine and ordered reinstatement with backpay; the Sixth Circuit denied enforcement, finding Brown’s action not “concerted.”
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether the NLRB permissibly construed NLRA § 7 by treating an individual employee’s honest and reasonable invocation of a right grounded in a CBA as “concerted activity” (the Interboro doctrine).
2. Whether Brown’s refusal to drive the truck, based on an asserted CBA right to refuse unsafe equipment, was protected concerted activity such that his discharge was an unfair labor practice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and upheld the NLRB’s order (5–4).
- The Court held the Interboro doctrine is a reasonable interpretation of NLRA § 7.
- The Court held Brown’s refusal, grounded in an honest and reasonable belief that he was asserting a CBA right, constituted protected “concerted activities.”
- Because the refusal was protected, City Disposal’s discharge of Brown was an unfair labor practice.

## Legal Principles

- “Concerted activities” under NLRA § 7 are not limited to contemporaneous group action or to situations where a lone employee is acting as an express representative of others.
- An individual employee’s honest and reasonable assertion of a right rooted in a collective-bargaining agreement may be treated as concerted activity because it is an extension of the collective action that produced the agreement and affects employees covered by it.
- Courts owe substantial deference to the NLRB’s interpretations of the NLRA and should uphold them if reasonably defensible.
- Protection for an individual’s invocation of a CBA right depends on the employee’s honest and reasonable belief that the conduct is authorized by the agreement.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a lone employee who honestly and reasonably invokes a right created by a collective-bargaining agreement engages in NLRA § 7 “concerted activity,” and that discharging the employee for that conduct violates the Act.


NLRB v. City Disposal Sys., Inc., 465 U.S. 822 (1984)