NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc.

NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), is a United States labor law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States . It held that employees in unionized workplaces have the right under the National Labor Relations Act to the presence of a union steward during any management inquiry that the employee reasonably believes may result in discipline.

Contents

• 1 Facts

• 2 Judgment

  • 2.1 National Labor Relations Board

  • 2.2 Fifth Circuit

  • 2.3 US Supreme Court

• 3 Significance

• 4 See also

• 5 Notes

• 6 External links

Facts

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLRB_v._J._Weingarten,_Inc.&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Facts")

In 1972, J. Weingarten, Inc. (Weingarten) operated a chain of food outlets. Weingarten operated two types of food establishments: stores with lunch counters and lobby food operations. Weingarten's purported policy was to allow employees at stores with lunch counters a free lunch, but employees at lobby food operations were not allowed a free lunch; this distinction (and what the actual policy was) would figure in the controversy to follow.

Beginning in 1961, Leura Collins was employed as a sales person at Store No. 2, which was a store with a lunch counter. Then in 1970, she was transferred to Store No. 98, which was a lobby food operation, where she again worked as a sales person. As a Weingarten sales person, Collins was represented under a collective bargaining agreement by Local Union No 455 of the Retail Clerks Union , which later became part of United Food and Commercial Workers . After a report that Collins was taking money from the cash register , an internal Weingarten investigator spent two days in June 1972 observing the store without the knowledge of Store No. 98's manager. After completing the surveillance, the investigator informed the store manager of his presence and reported that he could find nothing wrong. The store manager then told the investigator that one coworker had reported that Collins failed to pay full price for a box of chicken she had purchased.

The manager and investigator summoned Collins for an interview and questioned her. Collins asked for the presence of a union representative several times but was refused by the manager each time. Upon questioning, Collins explained that she had put four pieces of chicken (which cost $1 total) into a larger box (one which could hold $2.98 of chicken) because the store had run out of the four-piece sized boxes. To check Collins's story, the investigator left to ask the coworker who had reported her. The coworker confirmed that the store had run out of $1 size boxes and admitted she did not know how much chicken Collins had placed in the larger box. The investigator returned to the interview, apologized to Collins, and prepared to let her go.

Collins then burst into tears and exclaimed that the only thing she had ever gotten from the store without paying was her free lunch . This prompted renewed questioning from the investigator and manager because of the differing policies regarding free lunches at lobby food operations (not allowed) versus stores with lunch counters (allowed). Collins again requested and was refused the presence of a union representative. Based on the questioning, the investigator prepared a statement that Collins owed $160 for lunches but she refused to sign the statement. It was later found that most (if not all) of the employees at Store No. 98 (including the manager) took free lunches because they had never been informed of the policy prohibiting it. When the investigator contacted company headquarters during the interview, the company itself was uncertain whether the policy against free lunches was even in effect at that store.

As a result, the investigator terminated the questioning and the store manager asked Collins to keep the inquiry private. However, Collins reported the interview to her shop steward and other union representatives. As a result, an unfair labor practice proceeding was brought before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Judgment

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLRB_v._J._Weingarten,_Inc.&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Judgment")

National Labor Relations Board

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLRB_v._J._Weingarten,_Inc.&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: National Labor Relations Board")

The NLRB applied a right it had recently announced in Quality Mfg. Co. and then clarified in Mobil Oil Corp. that employees in unionized workplaces had a right under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to the presence of a union representative during any inquiry where the employee's job might be in jeopardy. The NLRB had explained in those decisions that having a union representative present was an exercise of the right to the 'mutual aid and protection' protected by Section 7. Therefore, an employer's refusal of such presence was an unfair labor practice and actionable under the NLRA. As a result, the NLRB found that Weingarten had engaged in an unfair labor practice by refusing Collins a representative and Weingarten appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit .

Fifth Circuit

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLRB_v._J._Weingarten,_Inc.&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Fifth Circuit")

The Fifth Circuit held that this interpretation of Section 7 was impermissible and refused to enforce the NLRB order. The Fifth Circuit followed the lead of the Seventh and Fourth circuits which had refused to enforce the NLRB's previous decisions in Mobil Oil Corp. and Quality Mfg. Co. respectively. The Fifth Circuit argued that no union presence was necessary in Collins' questioning because the company was not attempting to bargain with her in any way. Additionally, the court argued that requiring a union representative any time the threat of discipline was present would extend the scope of the NLRA far too broadly. The N

…