NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Labor Law

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActSection 7 concerted activityInvestigatory interviewsUnion representationNLRASection 7Section 8(a)(1)

Facts

Respondent employer investigated employee Leura Collins over suspected dishonesty and questioned her in an interview conducted by a loss prevention specialist and the store manager. During questioning, Collins repeatedly asked that a union shop steward or other union representative be called, but those requests were denied. Although the initial accusation concerning underpayment for chicken was resolved in her favor, the interview then turned to possible violations of company policy on free lunches, and Collins again requested representation and was denied. The NLRB found that denying her requested representation during this investigatory interview violated § 8(a)(1).

Issue

Does § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protect an employee's request for union representation at an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes may result in disciplinary action, such that an employer violates § 8(a)(1) by denying the request and requiring the employee to proceed unrepresented?

Rule

Section 7 protects an employee's right to request the presence of a union representative at an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes may result in disciplinary action. Denial of that request interferes with the employee's exercise of concerted activity for mutual aid or protection and therefore violates § 8(a)(1). The right arises only upon the employee's request, applies only where the fear of discipline is objectively reasonable, does not require the employer to bargain with the representative, and does not require the employer to continue the interview if it refuses representation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a unionized warehouse in Columbus, Ohio, supervisor Dana Kerr calls forklift operator Miguel Santos into an office after inventory records show several pallets are missing. Miguel thinks he may be blamed, but he says nothing about wanting a steward, and the interview proceeds with only Dana and a security coordinator present.

If Miguel is later disciplined and files an unfair labor practice charge based solely on the lack of union representation at the interview, what is the strongest answer?

Explanation. Section 7 protects an employee's right to request union representation at an investigatory interview the employee reasonably believes may result in discipline. Under the majority's rule, the right is not automatic; it arises only upon the employee's request. Because Miguel never asked for representation, the employer did not violate § 8(a)(1) by conducting the interview without a representative.