29 U.S.C. § 158(a)
Elements
Covered employer
It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer-
Coverage is cross-sectional; do not infer employee/employer status or commerce jurisdiction merely from a citation.
Section 7 protected rights
the rights guaranteed in section 157 of this title
Rights and concerted/protected character are defined outside §158(a), with judicial and Board interpretation.
Interference, restraint or coercion
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
Context governs interrogation; the Second Circuit rejected the challenged interrogation finding in Bozzuto. Do not treat any workplace union question as a violation.
Domination, interference or support of a labor organization
to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it
These are alternative acts under §8(a)(2); the six sampled opinions do not resolve the doctrine of unlawful assistance versus cooperation. This block is a statutory baseline, not an inferred multi-factor test.
Employment discrimination
by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment
(formerly `variant adverse-action/discharge`) Disciplinary or discharge action under the sampled Wright Line analysis. Discharge is one variant; the statutory domain also includes hiring, tenure and other employment terms.
Union-related discriminatory motivation
to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization
The General Counsel bears the initial persuasion burden. Employer knowledge, timing and animus can be evidence; these are not universal extra statutory elements. Group retaliation can reach workers without individual protected activity.
Same action absent unlawful motive
to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization
Judge/Board-made burden structure anchored to the purpose hook, not words of the statute. Applies only after the General Counsel proves the initial unlawful-motivation case.
Filed charges or given testimony
because he has filed charges or given testimony under this subchapter
§8(a)(4) text baseline. The breadth of participation beyond literal hearing testimony requires interpretive authorities outside this six-case sample.
Discharge or other discrimination for Board participation
to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee
Read with the statutory because clause, not as a free-standing retaliation cause of action. The sample does not establish a separate §8(a)(4) burden rule.
Employees collective-bargaining representative
with the representatives of his employees, subject to the provisions of section 159(a) of this title
§9(a) supplies the representational predicate and exclusivity; a claim cannot be inferred simply because negotiations occurred.
Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties
to refuse to bargain collectively
Includes the direct-dealing variant as described by the D.C. Circuit; the §8(d) duty does not compel substantive concession.
Noncoercive expression under §8(c)
if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit
Statutory speech protection; prediction versus threat is judicial elaboration. Hendrickson denied enforcement on its particular record, not immunity for all bargaining-from-scratch statements. Section 8(c) is an evidentiary as well as substantive protection throughout the subchapter, limited to noncoercive expression. It does not immunize discriminatory acts merely because they are explained in words.
Working-hours conference proviso
an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay
Subject to Board rules; not an unrestricted safe harbor for employer domination or support. The complete proviso is conditional on Board rules under section 156. Conference during paid work time alone does not excuse domination, assistance or unrelated interference.
Conditional union-security proviso
to require as a condition of employment membership therein on or after the thirtieth day
The complete statutory provisos require proper representative status, no qualifying rescission election, and limits on exclusion or termination. §164(b) and judicial financial-core rules also matter; this is not blanket permission to compel full union membership. The full a(3) provisos are anchored above. This exception is true only when its conditions and section 164(b) state-law limits are satisfied; the separately modeled construction-agreement rule supplies the different seven-day route without removing the final a(3) safeguards. Marquez states the General Motors/Beck financial-core interpretation. The word membership does not authorize compulsory full membership or charges for non-germane activities over a proper objection; the existing statutory text is not rewritten.
Narrow insignia-restriction justification
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
Judge/Board-made qualification to the employee insignia variant in In-N-Out (Fifth Circuit, 2018); not a universal defense. Public image and food safety were insufficient on that record.
Covered employee and applicable retained status
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
Section 152(3) coverage and statutory status loss qualify employer unfair-labor-practice routes; section 158(d) specifies status loss for strikers within required notice periods and restoration on reemployment. Do not extend that strike language automatically to every picketer or every protected activity. The d(4) contract-notice status gate must include Mastro Plastics; do not apply it to every strike occurring during a pending contract-modification notice. Its qualification is not automatically extended to health-care section g or mixed-purpose strikes.
Conditional building-and-construction agreement allowance
(f) Agreement covering employees in the building and construction industry It shall not be an unfair labor practice under subsections (a) and (b) of this section for an employer engaged primarily in the building and construction industry to make an agreement covering employees engaged (or who, upon their employment, will be engaged) in the building and construction industry with a labor organization of which building and construction employees are members (not established, maintained, or assisted by any action defined in subsection (a) as an unfair labor practice) because (1) the majority status of such labor organization has not been established under the provisions of section 159 of this title prior to the making of such agreement, or (2) such agreement requires as a condition of employment, membership in such labor organization after the seventh day following the beginning of such employment or the effective date of the agreement, whichever is later, or (3) such agreement requires the employer to notify such labor organization of opportunities for employment with such employer, or gives such labor organization an opportunity to refer qualified applicants for such employment, or (4) such agreement specifies minimum training or experience qualifications for employment or provides for priority in opportunities for employment based upon length of service with such employer, in the industry or in the particular geographical area: Provided, That nothing in this subsection shall set aside the final proviso to subsection (a)(3): Provided further, That any agreement which would be invalid, but for clause (1) of this subsection, shall not be a bar to a petition filed pursuant to section 159(c) or 159(e) of this title.
Section f permits only making a qualifying construction agreement notwithstanding its listed majority-status, seven-day security, referral, or qualification/priority features. It does not excuse every discriminatory act by a construction employer. The final a(3) equal-membership/dues-only proviso survives, as does the statutory representation-petition proviso. The same financial-core and state-law limits must be assessed.
Cases
- National Labor Relations Board v. United States Postal Service 841 F.2d 141 (1988)
Board enforcement proceeding over requested identities of union officers seeking supervisory posts; disclosure/privacy and relevance objections resolved. (result: claimant-won)
- In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. 894 F.3d 707 (2018)
Employer petition challenging Board order against its blanket button prohibition; court enforces order after examining public-image and safety justifications. (result: claimant-won)
- Capital Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. 909 F.3d 427 (2018)
petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of NLRB order finding hospital committed § 8(a)(1) unfair labor practice by prohibiting off-duty employees from peacefully holding picket signs outside entrance; enforcement granted and petition denied (result: claimant-won)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Imagefirst Unif. Rental Serv., Inc. 910 F.3d 725 (2018)
application for enforcement and cross-petition for review of NLRB order; granted in part as to exclusion from public right-of-way, denied in part as to police summoning (result: mixed)
- Airgas USA, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. 916 F.3d 555 (2019)
petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of NLRB order finding employer committed § 8(a)(4) and § 8(a)(1) retaliatory discipline; enforcement granted and petition denied (result: claimant-won)
- Novato Healthcare Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. 916 F.3d 1095 (2019)
Board found discriminatory discharges after an evidentiary hearing; court enforces order and separately affirms coercive questioning. (result: claimant-won)
- Directsat U.S. LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. 925 F.3d 1272 (2019)
petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of NLRB order finding employer violated § 8(a)(5) by refusing to disclose relevant agreement; enforcement granted and petition denied (result: claimant-won)
- Bozzuto's Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. 927 F.3d 672 (2019)
Review and cross-enforcement of multiple Board findings; selected block concerns McCarty interrogation, which the reviewing court rejects; other discharge/uncontested findings differ. (result: mixed)
- Firstenergy Generation, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. 929 F.3d 321 (2019)
petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of NLRB order; affirmed in part as to § 8(a)(5) unilateral implementation and reversed in part as to subcontracting (result: mixed)
- Erickson Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. 929 F.3d 393 (2019)
Review of enforced Board finding that crane operators were discharged to retaliate against workforce union pressure. (result: claimant-won)
- St. Paul Park Ref. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. 929 F.3d 610 (2019)
petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of NLRB order finding employer unlawfully suspended employee for engaging in protected concerted activity; petition denied and order enforced (result: claimant-won)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ingredion Inc. 930 F.3d 509 (2019)
Review of Board direct-dealing and other bargaining violations; selected issue is management solicitation of employee bargaining preferences. (result: claimant-won)
- Hendrickson United States, LLC. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. 932 F.3d 465 (2019)
Employer review petition and Board cross-enforcement; court rejects coercion findings concerning bargaining-from-scratch and relationship predictions. (result: claimant-lost)
- Local 702, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. 934 F.3d 590 (2019)
Review of Board supplemental decision after D.C. Circuit remand; Board dismissed the discriminatory-discharge complaint for strike misconduct. (result: claimant-lost)
- District Hospital Partners, L.P. v. NLRB 141 F.4th 1279 (2025)
2025 review of Board finding of surface bargaining based on combined no-strike, arbitration-elimination and other proposals. (result: claimant-won)