Get started
Work

The Ongoing Battle over Weingarten Rights for Non-Union Employees in Investigative Interviews: What Do Terrorism, Corporate Fraud, and Workplace Violence Have to Do with It

Year: 2012
Type: article
Abstract: This Article had its genesis in an inquiry into employee rights in the context of corporate internal investigations.While the right to union or coworker representation is traditionally associated with workplace investigations involving rule violations, tardiness, or similar issues, in recent years the rapid expansion of the internal investigation as a tool to protect business entities from civil and criminal liability has significantly expanded the scope of investigations in the workplace.For a more general discussion of issues pertaining to employee interviews in the context of internal investigations, see Sarah Helene Duggin, Internal Corporate Investigations: Legal Ethics, Professionalism and the Employee Interview, 2003 COLUM.Bus.L. REV.859 (2003).1.IBM Corp., 341 N.L.R.B. No. 148 (June 9, 2004).The employees petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review of the decision, but the petition was voluntarily withdrawn and the case dismissed in November 2004.Schult v. NLRB, No. 04-1225, 2004 WL 2595890 (D.C.Cir.Nov. 2, 2004) (per curiam).The NLRB has subsequently applied its IBM holding in other cases.See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 343 N.L.R.B. No. 127, slip op. at 1 (Dec.16, 2004) (confirming that, pursuant to IBM, "an employer in a non-union workplace need not accede to its employees' requests for the presence of a co-worker," but an employee "cannot be disciplined for making such a request"); BLT Enterprises of Sacramento, Inc., 345 N.L.R.B. No. 39, slip op. at 1 n.3 (Aug.27, 2005) (affirming pro forma finding of violation of employee's pre-IBM right to co-worker representation but denying remedy in light of IBM holding "that employees in a non-unionized workplace do not have a right to representation at a disciplinary interview").In a related context, in October 2004, the NLRB ruled against an employee disciplined for 655 20061
Language: English
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W774265502
FWCI:
Cites:
Cited by:
Related to: 10