Single point weingarten single partnerbörse Bergisch Gladbach
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. Indeed, when company headquarters advised Specialist Hardy by telephone during the interview that headquarters itself was uncertain whether the policy against providing free lunches at lobby departments was in effect at Store No. The store manager asked Collins not to discuss the matter with anyone because he considered it a private matter between her and the company, of no concern to others. Third, the employee's right to request representation as a condition of participation in an interview is limited to situations where the employee reasonably believes the investigation will result in disciplinary action. Fourth, exercise of the right may not interfere with legitimate employer prerogatives. (b) The NLRB has the "special function of applying the general provisions of the Act to the complexities of industrial life," NLRB v. 4 The Board's construction that 7 creates a statutory right in an employee to refuse to submit without union representation to an interview which he reasonably fears may result in his discipline was announced in its decision and order of January 28, 1972, in Quality Mfg. In such cases there cannot normally be any reasonable basis for an employee to fear that any adverse impact may result from the interview, and thus we would then see no reasonable basis for him to seek the assistance of his representative." 195 N. As stated in Mobil Oil: unaccompanied by his representative. "This seems to us to be the only course consistent with all of the provisions of our Act. The Board thus adhered to its decisions distinguishing between disciplinary and investigatory interviews, imposing a mandatory affirmative obligation to meet with the union representative only in the case of the disciplinary interview.
He would then also forego whatever benefit might come from the interview. The Board said in Mobil, "we are not giving the Union any particular rights with respect to predisciplinary discussions which it otherwise was not able to secure during collective-bargaining negotiations." 196 N.
During the course of an investigatory interview at which an employee of respondent was being interrogated by a representative of respondent about reported thefts at respondent's store, the employee asked for but was denied the presence at the interview of her union representative. 1052, enforcement denied, 482 F.2d 842, and Quality Mfg.
The union thereupon filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
In accordance with its construction in Mobil Oil Corp., 196 N.
Held: The employer violated 8 (a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act because it interfered with, restrained, and coerced the individual right of an employee, protected by 7, "to engage in .