## Facts

- J. Weingarten, Inc. operated retail food stores in Houston, Texas; an employee, Leura Collins, was represented by Retail Clerks Union Local 455.
- A company investigator suspected Collins of taking food without proper payment and summoned her to a back-room investigatory interview.
- During questioning, Collins twice requested that a union representative be present.
- The investigator refused both requests and continued the interview; Collins became upset and cried.
- Collins was not disciplined or discharged following the interview.
- The union filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that refusal of requested representation interfered with rights protected by the NLRA.

## Issues

1. Whether NLRA § 7’s protection of “concerted activities” for “mutual aid or protection” includes a union-represented employee’s request for a union representative at an investigatory interview the employee reasonably believes may result in discipline.
2. Whether the NLRB’s interpretation recognizing such a right is a permissible construction of the NLRA, making an employer’s refusal unlawful under § 8(a)(1).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and ordered enforcement of the NLRB’s order.
- The Court held that the employer violated § 8(a)(1) by denying the employee’s request for union representation at an investigatory interview she reasonably believed could lead to discipline.
- The Court accepted the NLRB’s view that the employee’s request was protected “concerted activity” under § 7.
- The Court emphasized deference to the NLRB’s reasonable interpretations of the NLRA in applying general statutory language to workplace relations.
- The Court described the operative limits of the right: it applies only when the employee reasonably fears discipline and affirmatively requests representation; the employer need not volunteer the right.
- Upon a request, the employer may (1) grant the request and wait, (2) discontinue the interview, or (3) offer the employee a choice between continuing unrepresented or ending the interview; the employer may not deny the request and continue questioning.

## Legal Principles

- An employer violates NLRA § 8(a)(1) when it denies a union-represented employee’s request for union representation during an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes may result in discipline.
- A single employee’s request for union assistance in such an interview may qualify as “concerted activity” under § 7 because the representative serves interests of the bargaining unit as well as the individual.
- The right is request-based and limited to investigatory interviews with a reasonable prospect of discipline; employers have no statutory duty to advise employees of the right.
- The NLRB’s reasonable construction of ambiguous NLRA terms is entitled to judicial acceptance even if the agency’s view reflects a development from earlier interpretations.
- A union representative’s role may include assisting the employee and clarifying facts while the employer retains control over the investigation and may insist on the employee’s own account.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the NLRB’s determination that an employer unlawfully interferes with § 7 rights by refusing a union-represented employee’s requested representative at a potentially disciplinary investigatory interview, establishing the core rule known as Weingarten rights.


NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975)