NLRB vs. Weingarten Highlights of the Case

When a representative of a respondent interviewed a respondent's employee regarding theft at the respondent's store, the employee was denied to have representatives of the union at the interview session; although the employee had placed such a request. Consequently, the Union filed a suit for unfair labor practice against the respondent with NLRB. In it construction, Mobil Oil Corp. 16 of NLRB 1052 was denied, Quality Mfg Co., 195 NLRB denied, 482 F. 2d 842 and 481F.2d 1018, revised post. It was held by the NLRB that the respondent had violated the law by engaging in an unfair labor practice. It issues a desist order that was however declined by the Court Of Appeals for enforcement, in which case it was pointed out that an employee did not need the presence of a union representative in an investigatory interview (NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 1975).

Held: The employer was in breach of section 8(a) of Labor Relations Act because the it coerced the right of the employee, restrained and interfered with the protection provided under subsection 7 which grants engaging in concerted pursuits aimed at mutual...

The respondent denied the employee the right to have the presence of the union representative although the employee had reasonable cause to believe that the interview leads to disciplinary action him (420 U. S. 256-268).
a. the holding by NLRB is permissible in the construction of the mentioned "concerted activities and mutual protection" provision done by an organization responsible for enforcing the Act as mandated by Congress (420 U. S. 260-264).

b. NLRB is empowered to conduct special functions to apply the general provisions to the complicated industrial landscape. The justification for the deference in NLRBs determination is based on "NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U.S., 221. 373 US 236" (420 U. S. 264-267).

485 F. 2d 1135 was, thus, reversed and remanded

How the court reached the ruling

The Supreme Court sitting in Weingarten concluded the matter by stating that the construction of section 7 by the board was at least permissible under the Act, although it was not required. The court set out the right to representation in section 7 as was created by the Board in Qty Mfg and Mobil Oi. To begin with, the right is valid in situations where there is an express request by the employee to have representation and such an employee has…