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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| campaign-speech/from-scratch-prediction-in-context | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/932/0465-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not | |
| insignia/blanket-uniform-adornment-ban | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/894/0707-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018 — satisfied | |
| interference/insignia-restriction | Employee protected insignia; assess special circumstances in the governing doctrine. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| interference/interrogation | Context-sensitive coercion inquiry, not a per-se ban on questions. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| interference/threat | Distinguish objective predictions from employer-controlled retaliation. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| interrogation/casual-general-question-to-open-supporter | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/927/0672-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — not | |
| interrogation/supervisor-asks-vote-near-election | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/916/1095-01 — Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — satisfied |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/894/0707-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018 | 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. |
| /f3d/916/1095-01 — Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 | 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. | interrogation/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. |
| /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. |
| /f3d/932/0465-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 | 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."
/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.