Opinion ID: 433054
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Right to Representation

Text: 9 The Supreme Court held in 1975 that section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 157 (1976), extends to an employee the statutory right to refuse to submit without union representation to an interview which he reasonably fears may result in his discipline .... NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 256, 95 S.Ct. 959, 963, 43 L.Ed.2d 171 (1975). Stated positively, Weingarten affords to employees the right to union representation at investigatory interviews. The Court outlined the contours and limits of the right to union representation in five particulars, noting among them that [t]he employer has no duty to bargain with the union representative at an investigatory interview. In its very next breath, however, the Court defined the role of the union representative by quoting from the Board's brief: 10 The representative is present to assist the employee, and may attempt to clarify the facts or suggest other employees who may have knowledge of them. The employer, however, is free to insist that he is only interested, at that time, in hearing the employee's own account of the matter under investigation. 11 Id. at 260, 95 S.Ct. at 965. Weingarten stated the law in 1978, when the consent judgments were entered, and in 1980, when the three alleged representation violations took place.
12 Kenneth Hill, a first line supervisor, called cable-splicers Ronald Borges and Troy Garner to an investigatory interview on April 16, 1980, on allegations that they had falsified their time reports the day before. Hill had been asked to arrange the meeting by his superior, Charles Reicher. According to Reicher and Hill, Reicher told Hill to have a union representative at the meeting, and Hill obeyed by suggesting to Borges and Garner a few minutes before the meeting that they get Larry Krug, a union job steward, to join them at the interview. According to Borges and Garner, Garner asked if Krug could attend, and Hill responded that he could, but only as a witness. The facts surrounding Krug's role at the meeting are disputed. The two employees and Krug testified before the special master that Reicher opened the interview by saying that Krug was present only as a witness, and that throughout the meeting he repeatedly responded to Krug's efforts to participate by silencing him. They agreed that Krug was able to make a few comments, but that he had generally been stifled in his efforts to speak. The meeting lasted some 45 minutes before Reicher announced a break and left the room to call Al Curry, the supervisor who had ridden in the truck with Borges and Garner the day before, to verify the time discrepancies. According to Borges, Garner, and Krug, Reicher returned ten minutes later, asked if the employees had stopped at the bank on company time, and, upon hearing that they had, announced that they would be suspended for three days. After announcing the discipline, Reicher closed the meeting by asking if anyone had anything to add; no one did, although Krug may have responded that nothing need be said since Reicher had already made up his mind. 13 Reicher and Hill recalled the meeting quite differently. They testified that they never told Krug he was there only as a witness. The union steward was allowed to participate generally, but was occasionally asked to confine himself to the subject when his comments wandered to irrelevant topics. Finally, Reicher testified that he had asked for additional comments after the break, but was unsure whether this was before or after he announced the suspension. 3 14 The special master credited the testimony of the employees and Krug over that of the supervisors primarily because of notes taken by management during two grievance hearings concerning the alleged denial of union representation on April 16: at the first grievance level, Reicher noted under Facts in the Case that Krug had been told he was present at the interview only as a witness; at the second, the district manager's secretary took notes that included, as an item under Management's Position, that Borges and Garner had possibly been denied union representation. The only explanation by Reicher and the district manager was that these entries had both been made under the wrong heading--they actually reflected the union's position. The special master found that Krug had been told he was present only as a witness and had not been allowed to participate at the interview. We find no clear error.B. 15 Billy Cook, a cable repairman, had an altercation with his immediate supervisor, Antonio Tamame, on Saturday morning, September 20, 1980, over Tamame's classification of Cook's absence from work the day before. Tamame was somewhat shaken by Cook's angry threats and called his second-line supervisor Wesley Latimer at home. Latimer calmed him, told him to write down what happened, and asked that Tamame stay away from Cook the rest of the day. The following Monday morning, September 22, Latimer called Tamame and Cook to an investigatory meeting. Union steward Danny St. Andrie was asked to attend the meeting either by Tamame at Latimer's direction, by Cook, or by both. Henry McGowen, another supervisor, also attended the meeting as an observer to see how such interviews were conducted. 16 Details of the meeting are much in dispute. The special master found that Latimer began by explaining that the purpose of the meeting was to investigate the Cook-Tamame altercation two days before and that some form of discipline might be imposed. He read part of Tamame's statement and asked Cook for his side of the story. Cook denied that any threats had been made at all. St. Andrie tried at some point to interject a question, but was silenced by Latimer, who said that he was only an observer and was to remain quiet. St. Andrie made no further attempts to participate. Latimer eventually announced that Cook would be suspended indefinitely. He asked Cook and St. Andrie if they understood; they said they did, and Latimer closed the meeting. 17 Latimer and McGowen testified, however, that St. Andrie opened the meeting with some irrelevant matter, and that Latimer stopped him, explaining that they were assembled on a more serious matter. Latimer told St. Andrie at the outset, according to the supervisors, that he was there as a union representative, that Latimer wanted to elicit Cook's version first, and that St. Andrie could ask questions or make comments afterward. Latimer never silenced St. Andrie during the meeting, and after announcing the suspension he asked if anyone had anything else to add. Finally, Latimer explained that his decision to suspend Cook was based on Tamame's statement and the absence of anything more than a blanket denial from Cook. Again, we find no clear error in the special master's findings of fact. 18 Cook's suspension and eventual discharge were the subject of several meetings in the following weeks, during all of which he was allowed at least one fully participating union representative. The matter was arbitrated according to the collective bargaining agreement, with Cook enjoying full union representation during the two-day hearing. The award upheld the discharge. C. 19 Repairman Carlos Quezada failed to follow Bell's call-back procedure on October 14, 1980. 4 Supervisor Gloria Gutierrez was told of the omission and, after checking with the customer involved, called her supervisor, Roy Casey. Casey checked Quezada's file and agreed that discipline might be appropriate: Casey thought suspension for the rest of the day would suffice, while Gutierrez considered a full day of suspension more appropriate. Casey ended the conversation by cautioning Gutierrez to hear Quezada's explanation of the matter. 20 Gutierrez called a meeting with Quezada ten days later. She asked a fellow supervisor, Jim Stockton, to attend, and she either invited the union steward, Gary Miller, or asked Quezada to bring him. Gutierrez began the meeting by announcing that it was disciplinary and that it involved Quezada's failure to follow the call-back procedure. She showed Quezada the trouble ticket representing the repair and asked why he had not been at the job to receive the call-back. Quezada could not remember the job ten days earlier. Again, stories diverge. Miller and Quezada testified that the steward immediately began asking questions, but Stockton angrily stopped him short, telling him that this was management's meeting at which he was present only to observe. Miller asked Gutierrez if she agreed that he was only a witness; she did. Gutierrez and Stockton recalled that Gutierrez had already announced Quezada's suspension by the time Miller spoke. Stockton admitted silencing Miller, but testified that it was after a series of questions and long after the suspension had been announced. The union appealed the suspension by grievance, during which it did not argue that Quezada had been denied representation. The discipline was eventually rescinded, and Quezada received back pay for the partial day; his employment record still contains note of the suspension. 21 The special master credited the employees' version, reasoning that Gutierrez' announcement at the outset that the meeting was disciplinary showed that she thought that no Weingarten right of representation was involved. He therefore found that Bell denied Quezada effective assistance of his Union representative by relegating Miller to the role of silent witness. Bell complains that the special master failed to make findings on certain events as to which the evidence was undisputed; to the extent that we agree, we have described the events in question. We find no clear error, however, in the special master's finding that Miller was silenced at the October 24 meeting. 22 Bell argues that Quezada had no right to union representation at the meeting because it was not investigatory. In Anchortank, Inc. v. NLRB, 618 F.2d 1153 (5th Cir.1980), we upheld the Board's view that an employee has no section 7 right to union representation at a meeting conducted solely to inform the employee of, and acting upon, a predetermined disciplinary decision. Id. at 1168. See Baton Rouge Water Works Co., 246 N.L.R.B. No. 161, 103 L.R.R.M. 1056 (1979). We explained that an employee enjoys the Weingarten right to representation 23 in any interview which he reasonably believes might result in disciplinary action except when the employer (1) has, before the interview, reached a decision to discipline the employee, (2) conducts the interview solely with the purpose of informing the employee of that decision, and (3) conducts that interview without going beyond that purpose. 24 618 F.2d at 1168 n. 28. 25 The special master found, and we agree, that part of the purpose for the October 24 meeting was to elicit Quezada's explanation for violating the call-back policy, and that the sanction to be imposed had not yet been finally determined before the meeting began. Not only did the meeting's purpose exceed that of merely announcing the suspension, but it was conducted in a way that went beyond imposing discipline--Gutierrez clearly asked Quezada for his explanation before announcing the suspension. Thus, the meeting was partially investigatory both in purpose and in fact. Anchortank therefore requires the conclusion that Quezada was entitled to union representation. D. 26 Bell contends that the conduct of its supervisors in each of these three episodes should not ground an adjudication of contempt because it did not violate the terms of the Representation Judgment. It did not discourag[e] or intimidat[e] the employees from requesting representation, nor did it interfer[e] with their right to engage in activities for mutual aid or protection. Instead, Bell either secured the presence of the union stewards or allowed them to attend the meetings. Weingarten was its only guide, insists the Company, and the decision did not by terms extend to employees any right to effective representation. Bell claims to have honored both Weingarten and the letter of our 1978 judgment by admitting the union representatives as passive observers of its investigative interviews. 27 The Board responds by citing two cases construing Weingarten. In the first, the Ninth Circuit held that Weingarten is violated by an employer who allows a union steward to attend an investigatory interview but requires that the steward remain silent. NLRB v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 124 (9th Cir.1981). In the second, this court further defined the union representative's role by holding that the employer may achieve an orderly interview by hearing the employee's account first and leaving to the end of the meeting the representative's additions and clarifications. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. NLRB, 667 F.2d 470, 473-74 (5th Cir.1983). 5 Bell insists, however, that these explications of Weingarten came after the Representation Judgment was entered and cannot be considered in construing its terms--terms that the Company says are too vague to support an adjudication of contempt. It also argues that Texaco and our Southwestern Bell decision were decided after the three interviews in this case took place and were therefore not yet available to guide the Company in the conduct of the meetings. 28 We need not consider the retroactive applicability of Texaco and Southwestern Bell, for we find Weingarten quite clear in its requirement that the union representative be afforded some opportunity to participate in the investigatory interview: 29 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 representative could assist the employer by eliciting favorable facts, and save the employer production time by getting to the bottom of the incident occasioning the interview. Certainly his presence need not transform the interview into an adversary contest. 30 420 U.S. at 262-63, 95 S.Ct. at 966. Thus, one of the major purposes articulated in Weingarten for affording employees a section 7 right to union representation is to eliminate the 'inequality of bargaining power between employees ... and employers.'  6 Id. at 262, 95 S.Ct. at 966 (quoting section 1 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151) (omission in original). Put simply, the union representative is there to help the employee in his effort to vindicate himself. See id. at 263-64, 95 S.Ct. at 967. Weingarten did quote language in the NLRB's brief that authorized an employer to insist that he is only interested, at that time, in hearing the employee's own account of the matter under investigation. But Bell cannot have reasonably read the case to leave open the possibility that the employer might foreclose the union representative from any participation. Texaco did no more than recognize that such a reading is wholly contrary to other language in the Weingarten opinion [quoted above] which explains that the representative should be able to take an active role in assisting the employee to present the facts. 659 F.2d at 126. 31 Finally, Bell argues that our Representation Judgment was too vague in its prohibition to support an adjudication of contempt. Having already recited the obvious mandate of Weingarten that the union representative be allowed to participate at some point in the investigative interview, we can only read our 1978 judgment to incorporate that requirement by its use of language lifted directly from the Weingarten opinion and by its reference to the section 7 rights of Bell's employees. The prohibitions contained in judgments or orders that may later ground contempt proceedings should no doubt be as particular as possible so that those bound might know what conduct is forbidden. 7 See Burr v. NLRB, 321 F.2d 612, 625 (5th Cir.1963); NLRB v. Athens Manufacturing Co., 163 F.2d 255 (5th Cir.1947). But those same prohibitions cannot be written so narrowly as to invite easy evasion. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 193, 69 S.Ct. 497, 500, 93 L.Ed. 599 (1949). Bell knew in 1980 that it labored under a consent judgment that forbade violations of section 7 generally and of the Weingarten right to representation in particular. We will enforce our judgment.