The right of an employee to have representation in a disciplinary meeting

by Michael Haberman on June 29, 2016 · 2 comments


Nonunion companies may be required to allow employees to have representation in meetings that threaten discipline.

Nonunion companies may be required to allow employees to have representation in meetings that threaten discipline.

Most good nonunion employers think that discipline is something done behind closed doors and is a private matter between the company and the employee. Sometimes if termination may be involved two managers from the company will participate in the meeting to insure accuracy of information. What if you had to let the employee have a representative in the meeting as their witness?

The Weingarten Rule

In 1975 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled on the case of the NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. 420 U.S. 251 (1975), which dealt with the right of an employee to have union representation in a disciplinary and/or investigatory hearing. The Supreme Court SAID that the following rules apply:

Rule 1: The employee must make a clear request for union representation before or during the interview. The employee cannot be punished for making this request.

Rule 2: After the employee makes the request, the employer must choose from among three options:

  • grant the request and delay questioning until the union representative arrives and (prior to the interview continuing) the representative has a chance to consult privately with the employee;
  • deny the request and end the interview immediately; or
  • give the employee a clear choice between having the interview without representation, or ending the interview.

Rule 3: If the employer denies the request for union representation, and continues to ask questions, it commits an unfair labor practice and the employee has a right to refuse to answer. The employer may not discipline the employee for such a refusal. (Source: Wikipedia)

This ruling only applied to union members until 2000 when the Clinton Administration National Labor Relations Board extended it to nonunion companies as well. I bet you did not know that this was a right you had to allow at one point. However, in 2004 the Bush administration NLRB overturned the previous ruling and thus nonunion companies no longer had to allow employees any representation in a disciplinary or investigatory meeting. That is how it stands today. Unless….

Obama NLRB

Now the very active Obama Administration NLRB is thinking of reversing the reversal with the announcement that “The GC also seeks to review cases involving the applicability of Weingarten principles (the right of an employee to have a representative or witness at investigatory interviews that can potentially result in disciplinary action) to non-union workplaces” according to the attorneys at Epstein, Becker & Green.

This is just one area these attorneys warn us that the NLRB’s General Counsel is looking at. Read here for more. Just this one area however, could be very disruptive to nonunion workplaces and slow down the process of investigations and discipline.

Let us hope the NLRB sees the wisdom of leaving Weingarten rights to union companies and not extending them to nonunion companies.


Sign up for free HR Solutions updates via email

Omega HR Solutions, Inc. uses creative human resource solutions to provide answers to time, money and service issues with employers and their employees. Visit our Products and Services page for more information or contact us to learn how we can help your organization.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Brent Garfield September 24, 2017 at 1:52 am

Coming from a true representative of human resources. To sum up the fallacy of your argument, 90% of the U.S. is non union and not afforded the same rights under “Weingarten” which are protections afforded to another class(i.e. Unions members). This is the definition of discrimination of a clearly defined class of people but the funny thing is that non union members are the majority. This is about big business, industry, lobbyist and politics. It should be about what is right, equal, and fair and not about the costs or disruptions. The main purpose is the equal right to have a witness present at an investigatory interview to prevent a supervisor from giving false account of the conversation among other things. I have first hand knowledge of how detrimental the discriminatory act of not extending the same rights to ALL. If a non union employee should not be afforded the right to a witness during an investigatory interview then a union member should not as well. To give the rights to one and not another cannot be justified. Like I said discrimination of an employment class. The majority.

Reply

Noah feld May 22, 2019 at 4:08 pm

Hi,unless it’s a hologram room 202,in shop rite in new rochelle,I work as a baker,I also live in new rochelle,my co workers,customers,my boss doesn’t know,in the 1970s used to live in Pelham,I set two arson fires,one to a mailbox outside,the Pelham police station!

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: