Union organizers Dooley and King applied for driver positions at Casino Ready Mix, Inc., a nonunion operation in Las Vegas, Nevada, in response to Casino's advertisement for drivers. Both wore shirts identifying themselves as organizers for the union as well as baseball caps with union logos when they applied in person on April 8.
Each stated his organizer status on his application. The company received their applications and told them it was not hiring. In fact, the company hired four other drivers between April 8 and 21. Evidence existed that the Company president had stated that he would never allow a union to represent his employees. Both Dooley and King were qualified drivers. The employer believed that "disabling conflicts" existed in this case and, if hired, the two union organizers would engage in activities inimical to the employer's operations.
Dooley and King believe that they were not hired in violation of Section 8 (a)(3) of the act. Decide. [Casino Ready Mix, Inc., v. NLRB, 321 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir.)] "A", a customer service employee at a Wal-Mart store in Oklahoma posted on his Facebook page while off duty "WuckFalmart! I swear if this tyranny doesn't end in this store they are about to get a wakeup call because lots are about to quit!" Two coworkers responded to A's postings with brief comments, and he replied with comments complaining that he was "chewed out" for putting merchandise in the wrong place. And, he wrote that he was going to talk to the store manager "about this shit cuz if it don't change Wal-Mart can ...."
When Wal-Mart learned of the Facebook posting the store suspended him for a day, making him ineligible for promotion for 12 months. "A" believes that his comments were protected concerted activities under Section 7 of the NLRA, and the discipline was a violation of Section 8(a)(1). The employer disagreed. Was this an unprotected individual "gripe" of an employee; or was it NLRA-protected concerted activity? [Wal-Mart, NLRB Div. of Advice, No. 17-CA-25030 (July 19, 2011)].