A federal appeals court has ruled that a factory worker’s pushback against his employer’s handling of the early COVID-19 crisis falls squarely under the protection of U.S. labor law — setting a precedent for how workplace safety concerns are treated under the National Labor Relations Act.
At the center of the case is Ronald Vincer, a former employee at Miller Plastic Products in Pennsylvania. Back in 2020, as the virus was spreading and panic was thick in the air, Vincer raised objections about the factory staying open without sufficient safety protocols. His concerns, voiced during a company meeting, weren’t a solo act of self-preservation, a court said — they were, in essence, a plea for better conditions for the whole workforce.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Philadelphia, unanimously backed the National Labor Relations Board’s stance: Vincer’s remarks were “concerted activity,” a key phrase that unlocks federal protection. As Judge Theodore McKee put it, Vincer wasn’t just scared for himself — he believed the plant needed to close or overhaul its safety procedures to keep everyone safe.
But the court didn’t give the NLRB a blank check. It told the Board to go back and take a harder look at whether Miller fired Vincer specifically for his COVID-era critiques or whether, as the company claims, it was a performance-based decision. After all, Vincer wasn’t the only one let go — three other employees were dismissed around the same time.
Miller Plastic Products stuck to its story: that Vincer was ousted for unrelated issues, not for speaking up. The company also argued that he was voicing personal fears, not representing a collective employee concern. The board rejected that interpretation — and took it a step further, using the case to dismantle a controversial 2019 decision (Alstate Maintenance) that had made it tougher for workers to prove they were engaging in protected group activity.
Under that older standard, just raising an issue in a meeting wasn’t enough — there had to be evidence of prior group discussion. The new test? Consider the “totality of the circumstances” — a far broader and more flexible approach.
The court sided with that shift, saying the NLRB’s new method wasn’t revolutionary but rather a logical evolution of precedent dating back to the 1980s. Still, the Board, currently hamstrung by vacancies and a legal dispute over a recent dismissal, now has homework: reassess whether Vincer was targeted specifically for his advocacy or simply caught in a broader downsizing.
For now, the message from the bench is loud and clear — when workers raise their voices about collective safety, even in the chaos of a pandemic, those voices can’t just be silenced.
