A · Element outline
Labels preserve the recorded AND / OR / EXCEPTION / DEFENSE structure.
- AND Filed charges or given testimony
§8(a)(4) text baseline. The breadth of participation beyond literal hearing testimony requires interpretive authorities outside this six-case sample.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- EXCEPTION Conditional building-and-construction agreement allowance
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.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Covered employee and applicable retained status
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.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Covered employer
Coverage is cross-sectional; do not infer employee/employer status or commerce jurisdiction merely from a citation.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Employment discrimination
Discharge is one variant; the statutory domain also includes hiring, tenure and other employment terms.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) adverse-action/discharge Disciplinary or discharge action under the sampled Wright Line analysis. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot discharge/union-supporters-and-cover-discharge 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/916/1095-01 — Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — satisfied - AND Interference, restraint or coercion
Context governs interrogation; the Second Circuit rejected the challenged interrogation finding in Bozzuto. Do not treat any workplace union question as a violation.
4 merits instance blocks; 4 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count 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 01 /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 01 /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 00 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 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot interference/threat Distinguish objective predictions from employer-controlled retaliation. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot interrogation/casual-general-question-to-open-supporter 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /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 01 /f3d/916/1095-01 — Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — satisfied - EXCEPTION Conditional union-security proviso
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.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Financial-only grounds without disqualifying employer knowledge
For the justification to apply, the employer must lack reasonable grounds that denial or termination was for a nonpayment-unrelated reason. This final a(3) safeguard survives section f expressly; assess financial obligations under Marquez/General Motors/Beck and applicable state law.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Equal membership terms without disqualifying employer knowledge
For the union-security justification to apply, the employer must lack the stated reasonable grounds that equal membership terms were unavailable. This is a condition on the exception, not permission to demand full union membership.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Organization not established maintained or assisted through prohibited employer conduct
Explicit threshold for the ordinary a(3) permission. A union-security clause cannot excuse employer domination or unlawful assistance. This condition was previously in the complete statutory quote and representation gloss; it now has its own stable node.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Proper representative and no qualifying rescission
Apply the unit, timing and election conditions; the union must also not be established, maintained or assisted by prohibited employer conduct.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Ordinary thirty-day waiting period
Ordinary a(3) route; section f supplies a different condition for qualified construction-industry agreements.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Financial-only grounds without disqualifying employer knowledge
- AND Domination, interference or support of a labor organization
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.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Section 7 protected rights
Rights and concerted/protected character are defined outside §158(a), with judicial and Board interpretation.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) strike-conduct/dangerous-highway-obstruction 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/934/0590-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — not Unspecified variant No variant assigned in the database. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/934/0590-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2019 — applied/procedural
- EXCEPTION Noncoercive expression under §8(c)
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.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- OR Alternative breaches of applicable collective-bargaining duties
Includes the direct-dealing variant as described by the D.C. Circuit; the §8(d) duty does not compel substantive concession.
3 merits instance blocks; 3 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) bargaining/direct-dealing Bypassing the exclusive representative on bargaining subjects. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot direct-dealing/soliciting-contract-preferences-outside-union 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/930/0509-01 — Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — satisfied information/refusal-to-identify-potentially-conflicted-representatives 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f2d/841/0141-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988 — satisfied interim-relief/successor-recognition-dispute 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 10 No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp/792/1459-01 — United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · 1992 — background/procedural
surface-bargaining/no-strike-without-binding-arbitration 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f4th/141/1279 — Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2025 — satisfied - OR Breach of an applicable employer contract-modification notice duty
Applies when a party seeks to terminate or modify an existing collective-bargaining contract. The final paragraph expressly removes duties (2)-(4) after intervening certification/supersession, preserves fixed-term contractual limits, and states striker status consequences. Do not impose the full contract-modification checklist on every initial bargaining encounter. Mastro Plastics limits the d(4) status-loss consequence for strikes solely against employer unfair labor practices; keep that judicial limitation separate from the notice duties of a party actually seeking contract termination or modification.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- OR Bypassing the exclusive bargaining representative
The Ingredion rule pinned under the parent supplies this judicially elaborated route. Negotiating with represented individuals on bargaining subjects can establish this breach without independently proving every contract-notice or health-care condition.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- OR Failure of applicable meeting conference or agreement-execution duty
§8(d) defines the bargaining obligation. Unilateral changes, impasse, information requests and mandatory/permissive subject boundaries need further subcatalogues. The full d definition also covers agreement negotiation, questions arising under agreements, and execution of a written agreement if requested. These are express duties, not judicially invented elements.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- OR Breach of an applicable employer health-care notice or participation duty
Section d changes specified notice and contract periods for health-care institutions and provides a distinct initial-agreement mediation notice. Section g independently requires union strike/picketing notice; its trigger and exceptions are not ordinary employer bargaining elements.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- OR Breach of an applicable employer contract-modification notice duty
- AND Employees collective-bargaining representative
§9(a) supplies the representational predicate and exclusivity; a claim cannot be inferred simply because negotiations occurred.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- AND Discharge or other discrimination for Board participation
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.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
- DEFENSE Same action absent unlawful motive
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.
2 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) business-rationale/past-crane-sales-without-discharges 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/929/0393-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — not credibility/discredited-sleeping-on-duty-account 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/916/1095-01 — Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia · 2019 — not - DEFENSE Narrow insignia-restriction justification
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.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) image-and-safety/non-speculative-tailoring-absent 1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 01 /f3d/894/0707-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018 — not insignia/public-image Not established merely by asserting a uniform brand image. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot insignia/safety Requires specific, nonspeculative support in the cited 2018 framework. 0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 00 No annotation uses in this snapshot - AND Union-related discriminatory motivation
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.
1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases
Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants Variant Description Merits instance blocks Distinct cases Example cases (up to 3 per group) workforce-retaliation/layoffs-reversible-if-union-backs-off 1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 01 /f3d/929/0393-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied - EXCEPTION Working-hours conference proviso
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.
0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases
No variants recorded in this snapshot.
Claim structure
Expression key: & = AND; | = OR; ! = exclusion / negation. Parentheses preserve grouping.
29usc158:a1-interference
employer and covered-employee and protected-right and interference and not protected-speech and not special-circumstancesIndependent §8(a)(1) route; the special-circumstances defense is scoped to the insignia-restriction variant, not all interference.
29usc158:a2-domination-support
employer and covered-employee and organization-interference and not working-hours-conference and not construction-agreement§8(a)(2): domination, interference or financial/other support are alternative statutory acts.
29usc158:a3-discrimination
employer and covered-employee and employment-discrimination and union-purpose and not same-decision and not lawful-union-security and not construction-agreementMotivating-factor/same-decision sequence models the sampled discharge cases, not every possible §8(a)(3) proceeding.
29usc158:a4-retaliation
employer and covered-employee and board-participation and retaliatory-actionSeparate statutory route for charges/testimony; no dedicated §8(a)(4) interpretation was resolved by this six-case sample.
29usc158:a5-refusal
employer and covered-employee and representative and refusal-to-bargain§8(a)(5) with §8(d)/§9(a); majority/representation, impasse, waiver and bargaining-subject questions require their own case-specific inquiry.
Constraints
Section 8(a)(5) violation also violates Section 8(a)(1)
These are related statutory routes, not two independent factual findings.
Protected noncoercive expression alone cannot constitute or evidence an unfair labor practice
Section c applies throughout the subchapter; it does not protect threats, force, promises of benefit or independent unlawful acts.
Special circumstances applies only to the protected employee-insignia restriction theory
In-N-Out supplies a judge/Board-made balancing defense for that variant, not a universal defense to interrogation, discrimination, or statutory bargaining duties.
Any applicable employer-duty breach can establish the refusal element; the routes are not cumulative requirements.
Each child is an alternative failure predicate: satisfaction means breach of an actually applicable employer duty, not the existence or performance of the duty. Contract notices require a party seeking termination/modification of an existing agreement; health-care modifications require the institution/contract conditions. Paragraph d(B) initial-dispute notice is a union duty, and d(C) FMCS communication is an agency duty: those are contextual anchors, not independent employer breaches. The employer's d(C) participation duty remains distinct. Striker-status effects inform coverage but do not independently prove employer refusal.
Ordinary union-security permission requires all applicable statutory safeguards, not merely a membership clause.
Independence, the ordinary waiting period, representative/rescission conditions and final equal-membership/financial safeguards qualify the a(3) exception together. Section f's distinct construction-agreement allowance supplies only its enumerated alternatives and preserves the final a(3) proviso. State section164(b) limits and the financial-core interpretation remain applicable as recorded under the parent.