National Labor Relations Board v. J. Weingarten, Inc.

Supreme Court of United States
420 U.S. 251 (1975)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, an employee has a statutory right to the presence of a union representative during an investigatory interview where the employee reasonably believes the meeting may lead to disciplinary action.

Facts:

J. Weingarten, Inc. operated a chain of retail stores, where employee Leura Collins worked and was represented by the Retail Clerks Union.
A company loss prevention specialist, Hardy, investigated a report that Collins had stolen money, but his initial surveillance found no evidence.
Subsequently, a co-worker reported that Collins had purchased $2.98 worth of chicken but only placed $1.00 in the cash register.
Collins was summoned to an investigatory interview with Hardy and the store manager.
During the interview, Collins repeatedly requested that her union shop steward or another union representative be present, but her requests were denied.
Collins explained the chicken purchase, and her explanation was verified; however, during the interview she emotionally blurted out that the only thing she ever got for free was lunch.
This was not company policy at her current store, so the questioning shifted to this new topic, and her renewed requests for a union representative were again denied.
Hardy prepared a statement claiming Collins owed the company approximately $160 for lunches, which she refused to sign.

Procedural Posture:

The Retail Clerks Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against J. Weingarten, Inc. with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
The NLRB, as the administrative tribunal of first instance, found that Weingarten had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.
The NLRB issued a cease-and-desist order against Weingarten.
Weingarten challenged the order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied enforcement of the NLRB's order.
The NLRB, as petitioner, successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the court of appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an employer's denial of an employee's request for a union representative at an investigatory interview, which the employee reasonably believes might result in disciplinary action, constitute an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan

Yes. An employer's denial of an employee's request for a union representative at an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably fears may result in discipline violates Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act because it interferes with the employee's Section 7 rights to engage in concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. The Court reasoned that seeking the assistance of a union representative is a form of concerted activity, as the representative safeguards not only the individual employee's interests but also the interests of the entire bargaining unit by preventing unjust employer practices. This right helps to balance the inequality of bargaining power between employees and employers, which the Act was designed to remedy. The Court deferred to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) interpretation as a permissible construction of the Act, noting the Board's expertise in adapting the law to the 'complexities of industrial life.' The Court also outlined the contours of the right: it arises only upon the employee's request, applies only when the employee reasonably fears discipline, and does not require the employer to bargain with the representative during the interview.

Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Burger

The Court should remand the case to the NLRB for a better explanation of its new rule. The dissent argues that the Board's decision represents a major departure from nearly 30 years of precedent without a reasoned justification. The integrity of the administrative process requires an agency to 'disclose the basis of its order' when it changes a long-standing policy. The majority improperly relies on 'post hoc rationalizations' by appellate counsel to justify the Board's unexplained shift. The case should be sent back to the Board to allow it to fully articulate the reasons for its new interpretation.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Powell

No. The right to union representation at an investigatory interview is not a 'concerted activity' within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act. The dissent argues that such a personalized interview is fundamentally an individual matter, not a collective one. Congress intended for such rights to be established through the 'free and flexible exchange of the bargaining process' between unions and employers, not created by the Board or the courts. The Board's 'meandering interpretation' and sudden reversal of its own precedent are not entitled to deference. This decision improperly infringes on an elemental prerogative of management to conduct disciplinary investigations as needed.

Analysis:

This landmark decision establishes the 'Weingarten rights,' a fundamental protection for unionized employees in the American workplace. The ruling significantly broadened the scope of 'concerted activities' under Section 7 of the NLRA to include an individual employee's request for representation at a pre-disciplinary stage. By affirming the NLRB's dynamic interpretation of the Act, the Court empowered the agency to adapt labor law to evolving industrial practices. The decision has a profound practical impact, requiring employers to develop specific procedures for handling investigatory interviews and fundamentally altering the power dynamic when an employee faces potential discipline.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: National Labor Relations Board v. J. Weingarten, Inc. (1975)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature