holding protected a television interview in which a nurse complained of hospital staff shortages, and suggested that they were related to low pay
How later courts described this case
- holding protected a television interview in which a nurse complained of hospital staff shortages, and suggested that they were related to low pay
- distinguishing Electrical Workers on ground that statements in question "directly related to protected concerted activity then in progress"
- nurses’ statements in television interview linking problems in patient care to labor dispute over salary were protected because they were true, were related to the labor dispute, and were not intended to alienate the public
- public criticism, expressed in letter and television interview, of working conditions for nurses at hospital held to be protected concerted activity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
A fair reading of the entire record in this case discloses for me a bald and stark want of substantial evidence underlying the Board’s conclusion that the Hospital engaged in unfair labor practices.
Specifically, the Board says that the Hospital “interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees [Nurses Weinman and Fields] in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.” 1 This legislation was made applicable to non-profit hospitals, such as the one here, on August 25, 1974, and the Board’s imputation of violations begins with events occurring within two days of the law’s efficacy.
Truth is, the “restraint” imposed by the Hospital consisted of its refusal to continue the employment of Fields because (1) of her disloyalty to the Hospital, while in its employ, in criticizing its services by letters to the newspapers, and in a joint television interview with Weinman, and (2) because in the next month thereafter she refused on three occasions to work when on on-call duty. The “restraint” placed upon Weinman was a “warning” arising from her part in the disloyal television interview.
*611 The tersely cogent observation of Mr. Justice Burton on disloyalty, or “biting the feeding hand”, in NLRB v. Local Union No. 1229,I.B.E.W., 346 U.S. 464 , 74 S.Ct. 172 , 98 L.Ed. 195 (1953) is a pithy and elegant disposal of this case:
“There is no more elemental cause for discharge of an employee than disloyalty to his employer.” p. 472, 74 S.Ct. p. 176. “The legal principle that . . . disloyalty is adequate cause for discharge is plain enough.” p. 475, 74 S.Ct. p. 178.
Finally, refusal to work carries its own condemnation. The order of the Board should not be enforced.
. Section 8(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 158 (a)(1): “It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer—
(1) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title; . . ..”
Section 7, 29 U.S.C. § 157 : “Employees shall have the right to self-organization ... to bargain collectively . . . and to engage in other concerted activities . ..”