EMPLOYMENT LAW

NLRB Changes Its Mind About Non-Union Weingarten Rights

July 19, 2005

By Laurel A. Van Buskirk*
for New Hampshire Business Review

In June of 2004, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overruled its decision in Epilepsy Foundation of Northeast Ohio, 331 NLRB 676 (2000) and held that employees not represented by a union are not entitled to the presence of a coworker during investigative meetings/interviews which the employee reasonably believes might result in disciplinary action. IBM Corp., 341 NLRB 148 (2004).

This entitlement, known as a Weingarten right, has long been enjoyed by unionized employees, but had only been extended to non-union employees by the NLRB in 2000 by the NLRB’s decision in Epilepsy Foundation. Prior to the decision in Epilepsy Foundation, non-union employees did not have Weingarten rights.

Without Weingarten rights, a non-union employer is now free to deny an employee’s request for coworker presence during an investigative meeting/interview and may lawfully require the employee to continue the interview without the presence of the requested witness.

Employers, however, should still proceed with caution.

First, employers should not confuse this retraction of non-union Weingarten rights with any other rights non-union employees have under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169.

In particular, under Section 7 of the NLRA, non-union employees are entitled to “engage in concerted activities for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection. . . .” 29 U.S.C. at §157. This includes an employee’s right to seek co-worker representation/attendance at a meeting with the employer, even though a non-union employer need not grant the request. The employee’s request is considered protected activity under the NLRA for which s/he may not be disciplined. IBM Corp., 341 NLRB 148 (2004).

Accordingly, employers need to be careful as to how they treat an employee and/or document any employee discipline in the time period following an employee’s request for coworker presence at an investigatory interview/meeting. For example, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 343 NLRB 127 (2004), Wal-Mart was charged with unfair labor practices in violation of the NLRA. The complaint alleged that Wal-Mart had violated a non-union employee’s rights by firing him for insisting on an independent witness during an investigatory meeting. The employer, however, claimed he was fired for refusing to participate in the investigation once his request had been denied and for other unacceptable conduct. The NLRB stated that the lawfulness of the employee’s discharge was dependant on whether the employee had been discharged for his refusal to participate in the investigation or whether he had been discharged for requesting the presence of a co-worker during the investigative meeting/interview and remanded it for a decision on that issue. On remand, if it is determined that the employee was discharged for requesting the presence of a co-worker, Wal-Mart may be in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.

Finally, given the volatile history of Weingarten rights vis-à-vis non-union employees, the NLRB’s current position that non-union employees are not entitled to them is not guaranteed. Employers should make sure they revisit this issue regularly.

Employers are also encouraged to consult with legal counsel as appropriate to address Section 8(a)(1) issues and employee requests to have a “witness” in meetings with their employer.

*Laurel Van Buskirk is admitted in New Hampshire and Maine.

Return to top of page

Return to Employment Law Articles
Return to Firm Publications