Question: Santos Diaz, Antonio Lopez, Rafael Naraes, and Jose Rivera worked on the dock crew for Mike Yurosek & Son, Inc., a vegetable packing company. Each had been employed by Yurosek for between nine and fifteen years. In early September 1990, warehouse manager Juan Garza announced to the dock crew members that he was reducing their hours to approximately thirty-six a week. Some of the employees complained that the new schedule would not provide enough time to finish their work. Garza apparently responded: "That's the way it's going to be. You are going to punch out exactly at the time that I tell you." On September 24, pursuant to the new schedule, the crew was scheduled to work from 10:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Shortly before 4:30, foreman Jaime Ortiz approached each of the four employees individually and instructed each to work an additional hour. All four employees refused to stay.
They told Ortiz that they were required to follow the new schedule imposed by Garza. The employees then proceeded to punch out. Ortiz met them at the time clock and instructed them not to punch in the next morning but to meet him in the company dining hall. The following day, the four employees were asked to wait in the company waiting room. Each employee was then individually called in turn into the personnel office and questioned by Garza, Ortiz, and three other company officers. When each employee was asked why he did not work the extra hour, each responded that he was adhering to the new schedule posted by Garza. After the interviews, the employees waited while the company officials discussed the matter. Each employee was then individually called back into the office and terminated for insubordination. The employees filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB over their termination. Was their conduct protected under Section 7? Was it concerted? How should the NLRB rule on their complaint? Explain. See NLRB v. Mike Yurosek & Son, Inc. [53 F.3d 261 (9th Cir. 1995)].