Document: 420 U.S. 276 95 S.Ct. 972 43 L.Ed.2d 189 INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, UPPER SOUTH DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO, Petitioner,v.QUALITY MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al. No. 73—765. Argued Nov. 18, 1974. Decided Feb. 19, 1975. Syllabus Respondent employer's denial of employee's request that her union representative be present at investigatory interview the employee reasonably believed might result in disciplinary action constituted unfair labor practice violative § 8(a)(1) National Labor Relations Act because it interfered with, restrained, and coerced individual right employees protected by 7 Act. NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., 251, 959, 171; p. 251. 481 F.2d 1018, reversed remanded. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John E. Jenkins, Jr., Huntington, W.Va., respondents. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 We set this case argument with 73—1363, 416 968, 94 1990, 40 557 (1974). The Board held case, as respondent employer (hereinafter respondent) an which action, violation Act, amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), employee, 157, 'to engage . concerted activities mutual aid or protection .,' 195 N.L.R.B. 197 (1972). Court Appeals Fourth Circuit held, Fifth was impermissible construction denied enforcement so much Board's order directed to cease desist from requiring requesting such representation take part without if feared also refused provisions offer reinstatement, backpay, who were discharged asserting right. 1018 (1973). reverse. 2 Respondent, a manufacturer women's clothing, Catherine King on October 16, 1969, after she attend company president representation. That same day, shop chairlady Delila Mulford persistence seeking represent interview, assistant Martha Cochran filing grievances behalf Mulford. 3 events leading discharges began 10, when Mulford, King, two other met Lawrence Gerlach, Sr., president; Mary Kathryn his wife production manager; their son general manager, complain they unable make satisfactory wage under piecework system then effect. meeting ended acrimonious note ordered return work told them free 'go elsewhere' dissatisfied company. Later Mrs. Gerlach noticed had shut off machine speaking several workers stopped machines. When resume production, mind own business. Thereupon report Sr.'s office. complied, but way office asked accompany her. anteroom He work, into alone. Neither woman stated would not submit absence representative. At this, both women stations. Sunday, 12, phoned mulford suspended days. found suspension motivated Mulford's attempt Sr. N.L.R.B., 199. 4 On Monday, 13, reported timecard missing rack, indicating plant wanted president's Before going office, however, They go directly keep job up where left Friday. replied: 'Well, I'm sorry, that's what you want talk about, is Union business has me her.' he until him alone waited outside all during time Cochran's removed rack. 5 Again morning 14, agreed meet about timecard, replied days being away machine. termed reason 'pretextual,' fact suspension. nor worked day. Much transpired next whose two-day expired, present. After private ahd plant, returned work. 6 Finally, three went gave again fired. walked out. could 'No, you've abandoned your job. You're finished.' attempted herself Jr. leave town no things. put list desk, picked threw wastebasket. pulled her: 'You morning, you're working afternoon.' been fired 'Just home. You draw unemployment now it.'1 '(t)here can doubt facts circumstances reasonable grounds believe Employer's investigation conduct.' therefore, basis desiring representation, insisting further suspended, discharged, insisted representing interview. Since engaging activity, suspensions discharge violated 8(a)(1). determined sought file herself, §§ (3).2 8 these facts, our decision today 171, clearly requires reversal judgment insofar denied.3 accordingly remanded direction enter new enforcing its entirety. 9 It ordered. 10 Judgment 11 POWELL, whom STEWART joins, dissenting. 12 For reasons my dissent I dissent. telephoned secretary learn whether 'He said no.' 'tell reach home phone needs me.' never notified Trial Examiner found, agreed, did abandon 197, 199 n. 9. enforced portion relating discharge. court there substantial evidence support finding activity herself. filed cross-petition, aspect Appeals' before us. Brennan Arnheim & Neely, 410 512, 516, 93 1138, 1141, 35 463 (1973); International Van Lines, 409 48, 52 4, 74, 77, 34 201 (1972); Alaska Ind. Bd. Chugach Assn., 356 320, 325, 78 735, 738, 795 (1958). do address respondent's objection procedural due process based upon theory liability allegedly charged litigated Board. participated proceedings premise issue decided discipline prior constitute nature, notice that, instead deciding question, turn 'reasonable fear discipline' But failed petition reconsideration permitted Rules Regulations 102.48(d)(1), CFR provides any material error may asserted through motion 'reconsideration, rehearing, reopening record.' therefore cannot assert appeal 'unless failure neglect urge shall excused extraordinary circumstances.' 160(e). suggest 'extraordinary circumstances' either considered. Mine Workers, 355 453, 463—464, 386, 392—393, 401 (1958); Glaziers' Local 558 NLRB, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 394, 399—400, 408 202—203 (1969).

Category: 6