NLRB Vs Weingarten Inc Case Study Term Paper

PAGES
2
WORDS
706
Cite

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 protection. The respondent denied the employee the right to have...

...

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…

Sources Used in Documents:

References

Fanning, J. H. (1982). National Labor Relations Board v. J. Weingarten, Inc.-An Overview of the Development and Application of the NLRA Section 7 Right to Representation. W. New Eng. L. Rev., 5, 1.

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


Cite this Document:

"NLRB Vs Weingarten Inc Case Study" (2017, June 09) Retrieved April 25, 2024, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/nlrb-vs-weingarten-inc-case-study-2165634

"NLRB Vs Weingarten Inc Case Study" 09 June 2017. Web.25 April. 2024. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/nlrb-vs-weingarten-inc-case-study-2165634>

"NLRB Vs Weingarten Inc Case Study", 09 June 2017, Accessed.25 April. 2024,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/nlrb-vs-weingarten-inc-case-study-2165634

Related Documents

Discharged for Facebook Comments The National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) has protected the right of free speech of employees posting messages on social media so long as that speech is limited to discussions about "wages and working conditions ... in an effort to improve them" (Kasle). In so far as Nelson's comments on Facebook regarding her supervisor were not constructive in the sense of advocating an improved workplace environment, they are

False claims act contain 'qui tam' or whistleblower provisions. This work will discuss the pros and cons of being a whistleblower and to ask the question of if one were aware of the fraudulent issues in the healthcare organization why would they not report the issues? In 1975, in the case (NLRB vs. Weingarten, Inc. 420 U.S. 251, 88 LRRM 2689 the U.S. Supreme Court established the rights of employees to