National Labor Relations Board v. Coca-Cola Co. Foods Division
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
670 F.2d 84 (1982)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Richard Geer was a mechanic at a nonunionized plant owned by Coca-Cola Company Foods Division (company) (defendant). Geer filed a grievance with the company complaining that he was unfairly removed from a training program and returned to his previous role. The plant manager denied Geer’s grievance, and Geer complained to the manager’s superior. The plant manager then forbade Geer to discuss the grievance with other staff and threatened to retaliate against Geer if Geer did so. A charge was filed with the National Labor Relations Board (board) (plaintiff) alleging that the company had violated § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (act), which prohibited employers from disciplining or threatening employees for engaging in concerted activity protected by § 7 of the act. The administrative-law judge (ALJ) held that the plant manager’s conduct violated § 8(a)(1) because it interfered with and inhibited employees’ free expressions of their grievances. The board affirmed the ALJ’s decision, stating that the manager’s threat of retaliation restrained Geer’s right under § 7 of the act to discuss his grievance with other employees for the purpose of seeking their aid and support. The company appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.