Opinion ID: 2089113
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(1) states:

Text: Public employers, their representatives or agents are prohibited from: (1) Interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in exercise of the rights guaranteed to them by this act. CIR alleges that UMDNJ violated this provision by refusing to allow it to represent Tenner during the investigatory hearing. Like New Jersey's Act, the NLRA provides that [i]t shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title. 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1). Section 157 guarantees employees the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. 29 U.S.C.A. § 157. In NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 95 S.Ct. 959, 43 L.Ed. 2d 171 (1975), the NLRB first announced the employee's right to have union representation at disciplinary investigations ( Weingarten right). Weingarten involved a lunch-counter worker who had been accused of stealing food from her employer. When the store manager and a member of the store's security team questioned her, she requested the presence of her union representative at the interview, but those requests were denied. Id., 420 U.S. at 254-55, 95 S.Ct. at 962-63, 43 L.Ed. 2d at 176-77. The employee filed a claim with the NLRB arguing that the employer's actions had interfered with her rights, contrary to 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(a)(1). The NLRB found that the employer's action in refusing to allow union representation violated the NLRA because it interfered with the right, codified in 29 U.S.C.A. § 157, of employees to act together for mutual benefit. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation of the NLRA and defined the contours of that new right: First, the right inheres in § 7's guarantee of the right of employees to act in concert for mutual aid and protection.... Second, the right arises only in situations where the employee requests representation.... Third, the employee's right to request representation as a condition of participation in an interview is limited to situations where the employee reasonably believes the investigation will result in disciplinary action.... Fourth, exercise of the right may not interfere with legitimate employer prerogatives.... Fifth, the employer has no duty to bargain with any union representative who may be permitted to attend the investigatory interview.... 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. [ Weingarten, supra, 420 U.S. at 256-260, 95 S.Ct. at 963-65, 43 L.Ed. 2d at 177-79 (citation omitted)] In addition to relying on the language of the statute, the Court also discussed the policy justifications for the NLRB's conclusion. The Court noted that [r]equiring a lone employee to attend an investigatory interview which he reasonably believes may result in the imposition of discipline perpetuates the inequality the [National Labor Relations] Act was designed to eliminate, and bars recourse to the safeguards the Act provided `to redress the perceived imbalance of economic power between labor and management.' Id., 420 U.S. at 262, 95 S.Ct. at 966, 43 L.Ed. 2d at 180 (quoting American Ship Building Co. v. NLRB, 380 U.S. 300, 316, 85 S.Ct. 955, 966, 13 L.Ed. 2d 855, 866 (1965)). The Court also defended the Board's ruling as being beneficial to employers as well as employees: 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. [ Id., 420 U.S. at 262-63, 95 S.Ct. at 966, 43 L.Ed. 2d at 181.] The NLRA does not apply to state employees, see 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(2), so the Weingarten decision provides no rights to CIR or Tenner. However, New Jersey's Act has a provision similar to Section 157, the root of the Weingarten right, granting public employees the right, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, to form, join, and assist any employee organization. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3. In East Brunswick Board of Education, 5 NJPER ¶ 10206 (1979), PERC adopted the Weingarten rule [i]n view of the similarity between the unfair practice provisions of the National Labor Relations Act and those of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, as amended.... Id. at 399. The New Jersey Act is indeed similar to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in its description of what constitutes an unfair labor practice. Galloway Tp. Bd. of Educ. v. Galloway Tp. Ass'n of Educ. Secretaries, 78 N.J. 1, 9, 393 A. 2d 207 (1978). Neither party contests PERC's adoption of the Weingarten right as consistent with New Jersey's Act. The conclusion that the Act provides New Jersey public employees with the Weingarten right is consistent with the purposes behind the Act as described in Red Bank Regional Education Ass'n v. Red Bank Regional High School Board of Education, 78 N.J. 122, 393 A. 2d 267 (1978). In that case, this Court confronted the question whether a union has the right to file an organizational grievance instead of asking an individual employee to file a grievance in her own name. In concluding that unions indeed enjoy such a right under N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3, the Court noted that [t]he principle of collectivity ... in public employment labor relations is at the heart of the legislative scheme. Red Bank Regional Ed. Ass'n, supra, 78 N.J. at 138, 393 A. 2d 267. The Court stated that to deny the union the sought-after right would surely `short-circuit' the system of collectivity the Legislature sought to promote in the Act and weaken its benefits. Ibid. There are other policy justifications for granting New Jersey public employees the protection of the Weingarten rule. As one commentator has explained, an investigatory interview of an employee often entails an atmosphere of isolation and intimidation of the employee. See Anthony R. Baldwin, Weingarten and the Taylor Law  A Claimed Difference Without Distinction, 7 Hofstra Lab. L.J. 123, 127-29 (1989). In such a setting, employees may be less than articulate in attempting to defend themselves. Employees may not realize that they could exonerate themselves through recounting to the employer certain mitigating circumstances. Thus, an employee's defense may be less than compelling, squandering the last chance of exculpation before punishment is delivered. See id. at 130. Those concerns have prompted some to compare the Weingarten right accorded employees to the protections accorded the criminally accused. See id. at 139 (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966)). In view of the purposes behind the Act and the benefits of the Weingarten right, we find that PERC's identification of the Weingarten right within the Act is a permissible construction of the statute. We emphasize the broad discretion granted to PERC in construing the Act and the absence of legislative language or history contradicting PERC's conclusion. In re Hunterdon County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 116 N.J. 322, 328-29, 561 A. 2d 597 (1989). We also observe this Court's willingness to be guided in its interpretation of the Act by the federal courts' experiences and adjudications under the [NLRA]. Galloway Tp. Bd. of Educ., supra, 78 N.J. at 9, 393 A. 2d 207.