In Plaza, a newly hired salesperson, Aguirre, discussed and questioned fellow employees about the employer’s policies concerning breaks, restroom facilities, and compensation. Another employee shared similar concerns about breaks during a staff meeting. Aguirre’s supervisor, Felix, called Aguirre into his office after learning about Aguirre’s complaints. During the meeting, Aguirre lost his temper and raised his voice. He berated Plaza and called his employer a “fucking mother fucking” a “fucking crook” and an “asshole.” Using a standard set by Meyer Industries, the Board reasoned that Aguirre’s discussion was protected concerted activity because the topic of discussion involved work-related complaints and grievances. Additionally, the conversation …show more content…
In doing so, the Board has balanced four factors (1) the place of the discussion; (2) the topic of the discussion; (3) the nature of the employee’s outburst; and finally (4) whether the outburst was provoked by the employer. In Plaza., salespeople were paid a straight commission with no draw or guaranteed minimum wage. Aguirre was a salesperson at the car dealership, and after receiving a paycheck of $150, he began to ask his coworkers about compensation. At a sales meeting, an employee other than Aguirre raised the issue of compensation. After learning that Aguirre was complaining about compensation, Felix called Aguirre into his office. During the meeting, Plaza told Aguirre that if he did not trust him, then he need not work there. At that point, Aguirre lost his temper and in a raised voice started berating Plaza and called him a “fucking mother fucking,” a “fucking crook,” and an “asshole.” Aguirre told Plaza that if he fired him, Plaza would regret it. The Board decided that Aguirre’s outburst was not so opprobrious as to deprive him of statutory