NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,424, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY and BUFFALO YERKES UNION., (July 29, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Jul 29, 1994)

E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY and BUFFALO YERKES UNION.

314 NLRB No. 109.Case No. 3-CA-17273. July 29, 1994 James L. Rose, Administrative Law Judge..

Before Gould, Devaney and Cohen.

Doren G. Goldstone and Rafael Aybar, for General Counsel. Charles E. Mitchell, Wilmington, Delaware, for Respondent.

Remedial Orders--Interference--Representation at Interview.--There was merit to an employer’s exception to the wording of an administrative law judge’s recommended Order and notice that erroneously suggested that the request for a union representative during an interview which an employee believes may lead to discipline can be made by the union rather than the employee. Consequently, the NLRB modified the ALJ’s decision accordingly. Section 10(c).

Back reference: 5320.52.

Representation at Interview--Employee’s Rights--Cutoff of Representation.--By terminating an employee’s union representation during a disciplinary interview, after permitting a union representative to be present at the initial stages of the meeting, an employer interfered with the employee’s Section 7 rights. Once established, it was impermissible for the employer to summarily terminate the employee’s union representation. Section 8(a)(1).

Back reference: ¶2220.4811.

From Text of Board’s Decision

On May 26, 1993, Administrative Law Judge James L. Rose issued the attached decision finding that the Respondent unlawfully denied an employee his right to request the presence of his union representative during an interview which he reasonably believed may lead to discipline. The Respondent filed exceptions only to the wording of the Order and notice. The Respondent argues inter alia that the Order and notice erroneously suggest that the request for a union representative can be made by the Union rather than the employee.

* * *

The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief. We find merit in the Respondent’s exceptions and shall modify the recommended Order and notice accordingly. In all other respects, we affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions.