Haney v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc., 5th App. Dist., Case No. F042980

The Court of Appeal held that just because plaintiff alleged that he engaged in what might be termed "concerted activity" (and therefore subject to the NLRA) when he tried to discourage fellow employees from going along with a fraudulent business practice, because interpretation of the CBA was unnecessary, that a cause of action for termination in violation of public policy could stand.

Judgment in favor of Defendant is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED.