## Facts

- Washington Aluminum Co. operated a Baltimore machine shop staffed by eight day-shift machinists and a foreman.
- The shop was poorly insulated; exterior doors were frequently opened; heating was often inadequate, and several machinists had previously complained to the foreman about cold conditions.
- On January 5, 1959, during unusually cold weather, the main oil furnace had broken down overnight, leaving the shop “bitterly cold.”
- Before the shift began, machinists gathered and told the foreman it was “too damned cold to work.”
- Seven of the eight machinists walked out together because it was too cold, without first presenting a written grievance or specific demand.
- The company discharged the seven employees under a rule forbidding employees to leave work without the foreman’s permission.
- The NLRB found the discharges violated NLRA § 8(a)(1) and ordered reinstatement with back pay; the Fourth Circuit refused to enforce, reasoning the walkout was unprotected absent a prior specific demand.

## Issues

1. Whether nonunion employees who engage in a spontaneous walkout over intolerably cold working conditions, without making a prior specific demand, are protected by NLRA § 7 as engaging in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection.
2. Whether an employer may treat enforcement of a rule requiring permission to leave work as “cause” to discharge employees when the departure is otherwise protected concerted activity, consistent with NLRA § 10(c).
3. Whether such a walkout arises from a “labor dispute” within the meaning of NLRA § 2(9).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and held the NLRB’s order should be enforced.
- The Court held the employees did not lose § 7 protection merely because they did not present a specific demand before walking out.
- The Court held the walkout grew out of a “labor dispute” under § 2(9) because it concerned terms and conditions of employment (adequate heat).
- The Court held the employer’s rule requiring permission to leave work did not supply justifiable “cause” under § 10(c) for discharging employees engaged in protected concerted activity.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 7 protects concerted employee action for mutual aid or protection even when the action occurs before any specific demand is made to the employer.
- A spontaneous, joint work stoppage protesting unsafe or intolerable working conditions can constitute protected concerted activity, including for unorganized employees.
- A dispute over workplace temperature and adequate heat concerns “terms or conditions of employment” and can constitute a “labor dispute” under NLRA § 2(9).
- An employer may not rely on a neutral work rule (such as a rule against leaving without permission) as “cause” under NLRA § 10(c) to discharge employees for otherwise protected concerted activity.
- Discharging employees for protected concerted activity violates NLRA § 8(a)(1) because it interferes with § 7 rights.

## Conclusion

The Court held that nonunion employees who walked out together because of bitterly cold working conditions engaged in protected concerted activity under § 7, that the dispute qualified as a labor dispute, and that the employer violated § 8(a)(1) by discharging them despite a rule requiring permission to leave work.


NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9 (1962)