NLRB Advice Memoranda, Starbucks Corporation, National Labor Relations Board, (May 24, 2022)

The Region submitted this case for advice as to whether it is a good vehicle to seek to overturn IBM Corp., 341 NLRB 1288 (2004).

We conclude that the Region should not use this case to seek a return to Epilepsy Foundation of Northeast Ohio, 331 NLRB 676 (2000), which extended the right to representation in investigatory interviews to employees in nonunionized settings. Even under Epilepsy, employees' right to a representative only encapsulated requests for a coworker, not “request[s] for personal and private assistance.” Electrical Workers Local 236, 339 NLRB 1199, 1199-1200 & n.11 (2003) (finding employee did not invoke right protected under Epilepsy where he requested assistance of international representative who was not a coworker, relying on non-precedential cases involving requests for personal lawyers); ​     ​ See also Mclean Hospital, 264 NLRB 459, 472 (1982) (“Representation by private counsel is not tantamount to union representation within the rule of Weingarten nor does representation of an employee by his private counsel constitute concerted activity within the purview of the Act….”) (internal citation omitted).

Here, we conclude that the Employer had no obligation to honor the employee's request to have a lawyer present or forego the meeting.¹

This email closes this case in Advice. Please contact us if you have questions or concerns.

​     ​

​     ​