United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019-06-24
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: 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; claim: (a)
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/927/0672-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 | Interference, restraint or coercion | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a); party: McCarty; theory: single interrogation; subject: party=McCarty; theory=single interrogation The reviewing court rejects coercion after examining the full setting, not because managers have an unlimited right to question workers. Other violations are not imputed to this particular question. | interrogation/casual-general-question-to-open-supporter | The question was asked by Clark during a chance encounter as McCarty was leaving a restroom.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0672-01; Unicode character offsets [45175:45267] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1afb650bcb3ef546004286b52f22f86edfaab169ef81ca171126f5027eb22a0c.It was asked of an employee who was, by then, an open supporter of the union.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0672-01; Unicode character offsets [45268:45345] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1afb650bcb3ef546004286b52f22f86edfaab169ef81ca171126f5027eb22a0c.The question was entirely general, the sort of question that might pass between any two employees, regardless of rank; it did not ask about individuals, and it carried no portent of discipline.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0672-01; Unicode character offsets [45346:45539] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1afb650bcb3ef546004286b52f22f86edfaab169ef81ca171126f5027eb22a0c.In sum, the Bourne factors "are not to be mechanically applied," Rossmore House , 269 N.L.R.B. at 1178 n.20 ; and in order to determine whether questioning constituted an unfair labor practice, the Board assesses the "totality of the circumstances," i.e. , it considers "whether under all the circumstances the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain, coerce, or interfere with rights guaranteed by the Act," id . at 1178 & n.20.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0672-01; Unicode character offsets [33749:34181] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1afb650bcb3ef546004286b52f22f86edfaab169ef81ca171126f5027eb22a0c.We conclude, as did the dissent, that the record supports the conclusion that all of the Bourne factors, except Clark's position as a company officer, point toward a finding that Clark's question was not coercive and did not violate the Act.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0672-01; Unicode character offsets [44596:44837] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1afb650bcb3ef546004286b52f22f86edfaab169ef81ca171126f5027eb22a0c. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
An employer's questioning of an employee will, however, amount to a violation of § 8(a)(1) if "either the words themselves or the context in which they are used ... suggest an element of coercion or interference."
/f3d/927/0672-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019
An employer's questioning of an employee will, however, amount to a violation of § 8(a)(1) if "either the words themselves or the context in which they are used ... suggest an element of coercion or interference."Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_927.jsonl#/f3d/927/0672-01; Unicode character offsets [30972:31185] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1afb650bcb3ef546004286b52f22f86edfaab169ef81ca171126f5027eb22a0c.Context governs interrogation; the Second Circuit rejected the challenged interrogation finding in Bozzuto. Do not treat any workplace union question as a violation.