Which actions in this scenario would likely be considered protected concerted activity under the NLRA?

The NLRA protects employees’ rights to organize, discuss workplace concerns, and seek union representation. Employers may communicate their views about unionization, but they must avoid conduct that could reasonably be interpreted as coercive or retaliatory.

Consider the following scenario:

A warehouse facility is experiencing rising frustration among employees about mandatory overtime and inconsistent scheduling. A small group begins discussing the possibility of contacting a union. Several workers start passing out informational flyers in the breakroom during their off-the-clock time. A shift supervisor notices the activity and tells them to “cut it out” because “corporate will shut this place down before letting a union in.” Later that week, management announces an unexpected increase to the shift-differential pay rate and loosens the overtime requirements “effective immediately.” The same supervisor then privately asks one of the pro-union employees which coworkers attended the meeting.

In your initial post, address the following:

Which actions in this scenario would likely be considered protected concerted activity under the NLRA?
Identify any unfair labor practices (ULPs) the supervisor or employer may have committed. Explain why.
Would the sudden improvements in pay and scheduling likely be viewed as lawful changes or unlawful attempts to influence union activity?
How should management have responded differently to avoid NLRA violations while still addressing employee concerns?
What additional facts would you want if you were the NLRB investigating this charge?