Weingarten rights
Case Study 12-3

Abstract
A union employee at a plan located in Memphis, Tennessee left work early one afternoon so that he could distribute union material at one of the company’s other plants located across town. He was seen by the plant manager who questioned him regarding his business there and then proceeded to contact human resources at his normal work location. The employee returned to work the next day and was brought into his manager’s office for questioning regarding his previous work day. The employee requested union representation for the meeting but was refused his Weingarten rights. After the meeting the employee was suspended from work for three days and told the investigation would continue.
Witnesses at interviews Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act states that union representation must be given to the employee fi the employee requests it, if the employee believes that an investigation may or could result in disciplinary action. This is known as an employee’s Weingarten rights. During the process the employer doesn’t have to bargain or negotiate with the union rep, they just need to be present. In this case the employee requested his union rep to be present, however his manager and supervisor refused to allow him to have a representative during the questioning. The Supreme Court has ruled that “a single employee confronted by an employer investigating whether certain conduct deserves discipline may be too fearful or inarticulate to relate accurately the incident being investigated, or too ignorant to raise extenuating factors. A knowledgeable union rep could assist the employer by eliciting favorable facts, and save the employer production time by getting to the bottom of the incident. (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2008)” Mr. William was entitled to union representation because he believed that the meeting could or would result in disciplinary action. He requested a union rep be present and was refused which may or may not have had an influence in the outcome of the meeting. During the meeting Mr. Williams refused to answer any questions that he was asked because he wasn’t being represented. Due to the lack of evidence prior to the meeting, and the fact that the manager obtained zero evidence through the illegal meeting, the fact that he was suspended for three days begs to question whether there is more of a history behind this employee or if the employer is violating their disciplinary procedure as well as the NLRB rights afforded to union employees. The NLRB has ruled that violation of Weingarten rights alone are not enough to overturn a termination of just cause. If the employer has evidence that supports the discharge, and obtained this evidence from outside sources not including the illegal interview, then the discharge will not be overturned (Holley, Jennings, & Wolters, 2008). However if the meeting alone is the only evidence then there is recourse that the employee may use. Namely the employee should file a grievance through his/her union and file a complaint with the NRLB office so that they can investigate the issue further.

References

Holley, W. H., Jennings, K. M., & Wolters, R. S. (2008). In The Labor Relations Process (pp. 287-288). Mason: Cengage Learning.