Source: law/NOTES-29usc158.md
# 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) — Wave 2 research notes Scope: employer unfair labor practices under subsections (a)(1)–(5), using §8(c)/(d) and the statutory (a)(2)/(3) provisos. This is a corpus-pinned research catalogue, not a determination of current law or an independent damages action. The Board proceeding and reviewing-court posture must remain separate from merits. ## Six citing opinions read Selected from the capped `statute_cited_by.json` entry `29 U.S.C. § 158`; this is a purposive doctrinal sample, not representative coverage. Read the facts/posture and pertinent rule/application passages listed below. No claim is made to have reviewed material omitted by IR's 60,000-character cap. - **Hendrickson United States, LLC. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. (932 F.3d 465, 2019)** — [corpus case](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_932/0465_01/index.html). IR `/f3d/932/0465-01`, sha1 `2dc47acb17eb4e76ffbc0e592cc1d6539d11c4d1`, chars `42615`. Read windows (Unicode offsets): 0–1200; 5244–12864; 13646–18112. Sixth Circuit (2019). Hendrickson: speech/predictions distinguished from threats; enforcement denied on the record. Quotations of Gissel within this opinion are attributed to Hendrickson as the immediate source. - **Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ingredion Inc. (930 F.3d 509, 2019)** — [corpus case](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_930/0509_01/index.html). IR `/f3d/930/0509-01`, sha1 `bd2d3861ee7eec9e70356aac7cc994c434e90eb0`, chars `24021`. Read windows (Unicode offsets): 0–2800; 6300–11200. D.C. Circuit (2019). Ingredion: direct dealing bypasses the representative; §8(a)(5) also produces a derivative §8(a)(1) violation; petition denied and Board order enforced. - **Novato Healthcare Ctr. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. (916 F.3d 1095, 2019)** — [corpus case](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_916/1095_01/index.html). IR `/f3d/916/1095-01`, sha1 `acd38bf0aad2b477d6200040f819352ef84c5ff3`, chars `34153`. Read windows (Unicode offsets): 0–1200; 7900–11200. D.C. Circuit (2019). Novato: Wright Line motivating-factor and same-decision burden sequence, with credibility evidence central to employer defense. - **In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. (894 F.3d 707, 2018)** — [corpus case](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_894/0707_01/index.html). IR `/f3d/894/0707-01`, sha1 `9443e36384bba53e75a2999f09fed625fd1626cb`, chars `32636`. Read windows (Unicode offsets): 0–1200; 4126–5856; 8050–12500; 19762–20632; 24072–24942. Fifth Circuit (2018). In-N-Out: protected insignia and narrow special-circumstances defense; unsupported public-image/food-safety assertions do not suffice. - **Bozzuto's Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. (927 F.3d 672, 2019)** — [corpus case](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_927/0672_01/index.html). IR `/f3d/927/0672-01`, sha1 `634229b1af70dbc629262beb82fd466be055b962`, chars `60000`. Read windows (Unicode offsets): 0–2600; 21766–32500. Second Circuit (2019). Bozzuto: partial enforcement; interrogation is contextual, discharge burden structure distinct from mere protected activity. IR is capped at 60,000 characters; do not infer complete treatment of remedies from this record. - **Erickson Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. (929 F.3d 393, 2019)** — [corpus case](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_929/0393_01/index.html). IR `/f3d/929/0393-01`, sha1 `e959cb536c5d6413ee59647588a5ed20128cd71c`, chars `15740`. Read windows (Unicode offsets): 0–9826; 10637–13650. Sixth Circuit (2019). Erickson: union-wide retaliation can satisfy initial motivation proof without each discharged worker personally engaging in protected activity; same-decision defense failed. ## What the statute does not define - Section 7 supplies protected rights and §2 supplies coverage definitions; neither is silently converted into text quoted from §158. A §158 citation alone does not establish employer/employee status or protected concerted activity. - Contextual coercion, protected insignia, objective prediction versus employer threat, direct dealing, and the Wright Line burden sequence are Board/judicial elaborations. `rule` lines carry exact immediate-source case quotations; `text` lines carry only exact statutory hooks, not proof that the hook defines the doctrine. §8(d)'s good-faith duty and no-compelled-concession clause, by contrast, are express statutory provisions. - `same-decision` is an employer burden after the General Counsel's motivation showing, not an additional element that the General Counsel must negate at the outset. §8(a)(5)→(1) is a derivative relationship, not independent duplicative proof. - These six cases do not resolve §8(a)(2)'s assistance/cooperation boundary or the full judicial breadth of §8(a)(4) Board participation; those branches remain explicitly statutory-baseline entries. Union security is only conditionally permitted; full membership, financial-core doctrine, and §164(b) require further authority. Bargaining impasse, information disclosure, successor employers and mandatory-subject tests likewise remain outside this initial catalogue. - Circuit/date scope is deliberate. Older opinions' statements about agency deference are not copied as timeless review standards. No blanket inference about current Board work-rule or insignia doctrine is intended. ## Current primary-source cross-checks (2026-11-10) The [NLRB employer overview](https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/whats-law/employers) and its [§8(a)(3) explanation](https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/discriminating-against-employees-because-of-their-union) confirm the separate statutory routes. The [§8(a)(5)/(d) page](https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/bargaining-in-good-faith-with-employees-union-representative) is a cross-check for the bargaining branch, not a replacement quotation source. [Starbucks v. McKinney (2024), official opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-367_f3b7.pdf) addresses §10(j) preliminary relief; its injunction standard must not be treated as an element of a §8(a) unfair labor practice. No comprehensive 2026 citator check is claimed. ## Verification `python3 neov2/tools/lawdsl.py check neov2/law/29usc158.law` passes: 16 statutory anchors, eight rule anchors from six distinct cases, zero errors. Catalog HTML/IR text, source pin, quote slices, IDs and hierarchy verified. QA2's substantive review remains separate; this is the author's evidence record. ## Round 5 correction The original sixteen-anchor catalogue omitted operative qualifications. See [R5-NLRA.md](R5-NLRA.md) for complete union-security and construction provisos, conditional employer notice duties, employee-status/Mastro Plastics qualification, and the additional Marquez pin. The original sample's limitations above remain; this repair does not claim exhaustive doctrinal completeness. Existing CASE IDs and source text are preserved.