AND · 29usc158:interference
Context governs interrogation; the Second Circuit rejected the challenged interrogation finding in Bozzuto. Do not treat any workplace union question as a violation.
Exact element source
to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employeesSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title29.jsonl#title29_sec158; Unicode character offsets [126:174] (end exclusive); SHA-256 caadb20cedf4fd4e200812fc0ec46617cc7978ef7a6b0a30e355bccfeb7e0d06.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| access-and-property-restrictions provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether excluding employees or organizers from property, or restricting their activity on it, interferes with § 7 rights (Republic Aviation, Lechmere). | 3 Satisfied 2; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 2 | Capital Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 909 F.3d 427 (2018) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2018 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Imagefirst Unif. Rental Serv., Inc. — 910 F.3d 725 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · conceded (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Imagefirst Unif. Rental Serv., Inc. — 910 F.3d 725 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018 — not · no-evidence (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| employer-speech provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether an employer's campaign statement is a protected prediction or a threat (§ 8(c), Gissel). | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | Hendrickson United States, LLC. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 932 F.3d 465 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| insignia-ban provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether a rule against union insignia or adornment interferes with § 7 rights. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 894 F.3d 707 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · law (29usc158: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| interrogation provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether questioning employees about union sympathies was coercive in context. | 2 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 2 | Novato Healthcare Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 916 F.3d 1095 (2019) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — satisfied · law (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Bozzuto's Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 927 F.3d 672 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (29usc158: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 894 F.3d 707 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · law (29usc158: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | Interference, restraint or coercion | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a); party: Crowder and other employees; subject: party=Crowder and other employees The undisputed rule restricts protected wage-campaign insignia; the company bears the separate special-circumstances issue. | insignia/blanket-uniform-adornment-ban | Palmini then told Crowder that he could not add anything to the uniform and instructed Crowder to remove the button.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_894.jsonl#/f3d/894/0707-01; Unicode character offsets [2691:2807] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd560224f746993dcd4e042a295f5c227d57ddf21054da489a9121796d4599e9.By prohibiting employees from "[w]earing any type of pin or stickers," In-N-Out's rule restricts its employees' Section 7 rights and is therefore presumptively unlawful.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_894.jsonl#/f3d/894/0707-01; Unicode character offsets [14284:14453] (end exclusive); SHA-256 bd560224f746993dcd4e042a295f5c227d57ddf21054da489a9121796d4599e9. |
| Capital Med. Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 909 F.3d 427 (2018) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2018 — satisfied · proved (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Interference, restraint or coercion | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: Capital Medical Center; count: § 8(a)(1) prohibition of stationary picketing; subject: party=Capital Medical Center; count=§ 8(a)(1) prohibition of stationary picketing Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that the hospital did not rebut the hospital-tailored Republic Aviation presumption; the restriction therefore violated § 8(a)(1). | hospital permits leafleting at the entrance but orders off-duty employees with picket signs off its property, threatens discipline and calls the police | Multiple hospital personnel told the employees that they could continue distributing leaflets but could not stand on hospital property with their picket signs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl#/f3d/909/0427-01; Unicode character offsets [7114:7273] (end exclusive); SHA-256 927ef71bb825de8205e5e4d1a9efa9112050becd7db6b944a7cb5b878ac5aca7.Capital's counsel then called the Union's attorney and threatened to discipline the employees or call the police.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl#/f3d/909/0427-01; Unicode character offsets [7680:7793] (end exclusive); SHA-256 927ef71bb825de8205e5e4d1a9efa9112050becd7db6b944a7cb5b878ac5aca7.They did not chant, march, or obstruct visitors from entering or leaving the hospital, and Capital offered no evidence demonstrating that the peaceful holding of picket signs nonetheless could disrupt patient care.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl#/f3d/909/0427-01; Unicode character offsets [27212:27426] (end exclusive); SHA-256 927ef71bb825de8205e5e4d1a9efa9112050becd7db6b944a7cb5b878ac5aca7.But outside of immediate patient-care areas, such as in hospital lounges and cafeterias, a prohibition on employee solicitation of union support is presumptively invalid unless the hospital can demonstrate the need for the restriction "to avoid disruption of health-care operations or disturbance of patients."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl#/f3d/909/0427-01; Unicode character offsets [4691:5001] (end exclusive); SHA-256 927ef71bb825de8205e5e4d1a9efa9112050becd7db6b944a7cb5b878ac5aca7.We therefore uphold the Board's finding that the picketing at issue here presented no likelihood of disruption or disturbance, and we sustain the Board's resulting conclusion that Capital violated the NLRA by attempting to stop the employees from holding picket signs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_909.jsonl#/f3d/909/0427-01; Unicode character offsets [27427:27695] (end exclusive); SHA-256 927ef71bb825de8205e5e4d1a9efa9112050becd7db6b944a7cb5b878ac5aca7. |
| Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Imagefirst Unif. Rental Serv., Inc. — 910 F.3d 725 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018 — satisfied · conceded (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Interference, restraint or coercion | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; party: ImageFIRST Uniform Rental Service, Inc.; count: § 8(a)(1) exclusion from public right-of-way; subject: party=ImageFIRST Uniform Rental Service, Inc.; count=§ 8(a)(1) exclusion from public right-of-way Summary enforcement of the uncontested findings: the employer did not seek review of the exclusion-from-the-shoulder violations, so the court did not itself weigh the evidence on them. | manager demands that non-employee union leafleters leave the public shoulder of the road, over which the employer had no right to exclude | Cunningham asked them to leave, and Valentin (the union field coordinator) said that they had a right to be there.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [6082:6196] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.Acting based on this mistaken belief, Cunningham called the police, told them that the union representatives were trespassing, and demanded that they be arrested.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [6674:6836] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa."ImageFirst is not disputing the NLRB's limited finding that Cunningham's erroneous belief that the Company had a property interest in the shoulder of the road was unreasonable, and thus, a violation of the Act."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [20215:20427] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.It is also uncontested that an employer cannot restrict union access to public property or private property from which the employer does not possess the right to exclude others.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [23229:23406] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.We will grant the application for enforcement and deny the cross-petition for review as to the NLRB's findings that ImageFirst violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by prohibiting union representatives from distributing pro-union literature in the public right-of-way adjacent to ImageFirst's facility and by trying to remove the union representatives from the public right-of-way.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [40771:41151] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa. |
| Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Imagefirst Unif. Rental Serv., Inc. — 910 F.3d 725 (2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018 — not · no-evidence (29usc158: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Interference, restraint or coercion | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: ImageFIRST Uniform Rental Service, Inc.; count: § 8(a)(1) summoning police; subject: party=ImageFIRST Uniform Rental Service, Inc.; count=§ 8(a)(1) summoning police Enforcement denied on the police-summoning finding: the Board ignored record evidence and ALJ findings of continuing driveway incursions, which compelled a finding of a subjectively held and objectively reasonable property concern (Nations Rent). | employer threatens to call and calls the police on leafleters who keep stepping from the public shoulder onto its driveway; reasonable-concern rule | Cunningham testified that he witnessed these individuals continue to make forays onto the company's driveway to leaflet vehicles-even after they had moved to the shoulder from the grassy area.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [27577:27769] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa."Valentin admitted that on occasions, a representative may have entered the driveway but no more than 5-10 feet from the shoulder area and would immediately leave the area."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [28475:28648] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.Significantly, the ALJ found that a driveway foray occurred while the police were present and that this incursion was witnessed by one of the police officers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [30340:30498] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.Before the Respondent called the police, the union representatives had already moved to the shoulder of the highway at the Respondent's request; the union representatives were on the shoulder, not the Respondent's private property, when the police arrivedSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [15798:16053] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.It is well established that there is no NLRA violation where an employer can show that its threat to call or its call to the police "is motivated by some reasonable concern, such as public safety or interference with legally protected interests."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [24142:24388] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.In short, substantial evidence did not support the finding by the NLRB that ImageFirst's threat to call the police and the company's call to the police were motivated solely by a desire to remove the union representatives from the public right-of-way.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [21497:21748] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa.We believe that no reasonable finder of fact could have failed to find that this concern was reasonable because, even though ImageFirst was wrong about the scope of its property rights over the shoulder, it still possessed the right to contact the police on account of the union representatives' repeated and ongoing forays onto its private property.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_910.jsonl#/f3d/910/0725-01; Unicode character offsets [35016:35366] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f880d564a596140e877374291d89e6a12fc0fcc3b5259116aec01550f58419fa. |
| Novato Healthcare Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 916 F.3d 1095 (2019) · Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — satisfied · law (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Interference, restraint or coercion | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a); party: Metellus; theory: Rocha interrogation; subject: party=Metellus; theory=Rocha interrogation Unlike the casual question in Bozzuto, the timing, supervisor status and remarks about pay support the court’s coercion conclusion. | supervisor-asks-vote-near-election | Rocha asked Metellus, who was a relatively new employee, how he planned to vote in the upcoming election.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/1095-01; Unicode character offsets [2122:2227] (end exclusive); SHA-256 619b4737a25b3eff7f5171fe7092f24823bff6f7ac6a4f4f000ee78df3a3dcc2.When Metellus responded that he planned to vote in favor of the union, Rocha told him that doing so would have implications for his pay and that the union could potentially take a portion of his paycheck.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/1095-01; Unicode character offsets [2228:2432] (end exclusive); SHA-256 619b4737a25b3eff7f5171fe7092f24823bff6f7ac6a4f4f000ee78df3a3dcc2.we uphold as reasonable its conclusion that Rocha's questioning was sufficiently coercive to violate the Act.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_916.jsonl#/f3d/916/1095-01; Unicode character offsets [28926:29035] (end exclusive); SHA-256 619b4737a25b3eff7f5171fe7092f24823bff6f7ac6a4f4f000ee78df3a3dcc2. |
| Bozzuto's Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 927 F.3d 672 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (29usc158: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md)) | 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. | 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. |
| Hendrickson United States, LLC. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 932 F.3d 465 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (29usc158: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Interference, restraint or coercion | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a); theory: from-scratch letter; subject: theory=from-scratch letter This block concerns the from-scratch letter. The court reads timing and the broader give-and-take explanation; it does not approve every threat using the same words. | campaign-speech/from-scratch-prediction-in-context | The Company and any recognized Union would begin the negotiating process from scratch.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0465-01; Unicode character offsets [13993:14079] (end exclusive); SHA-256 abbe12127423758a67ee448afca5b2688080e27f652c231d09d5f6df0dfb14e4.The company makes clear that its statement is meant to counter any ideas that union representation would automatically lead to an increase in compensation, and that purpose is explicitly allowed under Board precedent.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0465-01; Unicode character offsets [16374:16591] (end exclusive); SHA-256 abbe12127423758a67ee448afca5b2688080e27f652c231d09d5f6df0dfb14e4.The phrase is coercive if used to "indicate that the employer will adopt a regressive bargaining stance or lowered benefits to penalize workers for unionization," and it must be "viewed in the context of other statements or actions by the employer."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0465-01; Unicode character offsets [9370:9619] (end exclusive); SHA-256 abbe12127423758a67ee448afca5b2688080e27f652c231d09d5f6df0dfb14e4.Despite the deference we owe to the Board's expertise in labor matters, we find that the Board's conclusion is not supported even by substantial evidence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/0465-01; Unicode character offsets [16060:16214] (end exclusive); SHA-256 abbe12127423758a67ee448afca5b2688080e27f652c231d09d5f6df0dfb14e4. |
Court interpretations
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."
Bozzuto's Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. — 927 F.3d 672 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 (29usc158: author: Astra4 · QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2-crosscheck.md))
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.