The answer is “No.” While employees in union workplaces do have a right to have a representative present during investigative interviews that could result in discipline, employees – even those represented by unions – do not have a right to have a lawyer present when being questioned by human resources.
Full Answer
Hiring an outside lawyer costs a substantial amount of money, doing so may exacerbate the issues you are having with your union representatives, and (statistically) it is very unlikely a complaint to a labour board will be successful. So, give serious thought to your situation before hiring a lawyer of your own. You may end up being glad you did.
The union is, in effect, your lawyer in relation to your employment. However, your union must adhere to certain rules in representing you. It has been stated in case law that a union is prohibited under the “duty of fair representation” from engaging in any of three forms of misconduct in representing employees.
A union member is, of course, generally free to seek outside (independent) legal advice if he or she so chooses. However, this is a cost which will be borne entirely by that person (above and beyond payment of union dues).
However, as noted in Weingarten, the exercise of the right to representation may not interfere with legitimate employer prerogatives. Therefore, the union representative is entitled to attend the meeting, but he/she cannot speak for the employee.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is a Federal agency that protects your right to join together with other employees to improve your wages and working conditions, with or without the help of a union. For assistance, please call: 1-844-762-NLRB (1-844-762-6572)
Employees' right to request their representatives are frequently referred to as “Weingarten rights.” Employers violate the NLRA if they proceed with an investigatory interview while refusing an employee's request or retaliate against them for making the request.
To file a complaint, contact the regional NLRB office nearest you. File an NLRB Form 508 - Charge Against Labor Organization or its Agents.
98 (2015). Disciplining an employee for exercising his Weingarten rights will result in a make-whole remedy. Merely violating an employee's Weingarten rights by denying him a union representative during an investigatory interview will result only in a cease-and-desist order and a posting requirement.
The legal position is the same whether the representative is a trade union official or a work colleague. The representative is permitted to address the disciplinary hearing to: put the worker's case; sum up that case; and/or respond on the worker's behalf to any view expressed at the hearing.
If the supervisor denies the request for union representation and continues the interview, the employee has the legal right to refuse to answer questions. The representative is allowed to advise and assist the employee in presenting the facts.
You might be able to take your trade union to court, eg for breach of contract if it breaks its own rules. You should seek legal advice before you do this. You can't complain to the Certification Officer and the courts about the same problem.
If you wish to report a widespread violation of labor law by your employer or a violation affecting multiple employees, please contact LETF via phone, online lead referral form or email: Call the LETF Public hotline anytime: 855 297 5322. Complete the Online Form / Spanish Form. Email us at letf@dir.ca.gov.
An unfair labor practice is an action by an employer or a union that violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Examples of prohibited conduct by a union include: Restraining or coercing the employer or employees in exercising the rights provided by the NLRA.
Since a union can discipline only those employees who are voluntary members, a “financial core payor” or “agency fee payor” permanently shields himself from fines and other forms of union discipline that can be imposed on members who violate union rules.
Union representative or steward – has statutory rights to represent members in the workplace and carry out other workplace duties. Health and safety representative – has statutory rights to cover many aspects of health, safety and welfare in the workplace and attends health and safety committee meetings.
The law - Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C)A 92) protects workers from being subjected to detriment related to trade union membership or taking part in trade union activities.
If the employer foregoes questioning a complaining employee because that employee insists on having a lawyer, it risks being accused of not having appropriately investigated the complaint.
On one hand, if the employee who is refusing to cooperate in an investigation without their attorney being present is the very employee who complained about a potentially unlawful practice in the first place, terminating that employee because they refuse to talk without an attorney could be considered retaliatory.
The answer is “No.”. While employees in union workplaces do have a right to have a representative present during investigative interviews that could result in discipline, employees – even those represented by unions – do not have a right to have a lawyer present when being questioned by human resources. So what should an employer do ...
If you feel that the union is not responding to your requests, you may be able to make suggestions to them about how to handle your claim. For instance, you can ask them to interview specific witnesses, request certain documents from the employer, and investigate the experiences of coworkers that are similar to yours.
A union owes a duty of fair representation to all of the workers it represents. This duty requires that the union act fairly, impartially, and without ill will or discrimination when pursuing a worker’s grievance or when negotiating a new contract with the employer. The union is required to take reasonable steps to investigate a grievance ...
On the other hand, if you believe the union intentionally mismanaged your grievance because they didn’t like you or because of your race, gender, or other discriminatory reason, the union may have breached its duty of fair representation and you may have a claim.
discriminatory (e.g., a union refuses to pursue the grievances of all of its non-white workers); or in bad faith (e.g., a union official fails to respond to your complaint just because he/she doesn’t like you). If you feel that the union has treated you in one of these three ways and has breached its duty of fair representation, ...
Again, probably not. The law does not require that the union be smart about the resolution of grievances. As long as they were reasonably thorough and careful, they will not have breached their duty to fairly represent you—even if the result is worse than the situation that caused you to file a grievance in the first place. On the other hand, if you believe the union intentionally mismanaged your grievance because they didn’t like you or because of your race, gender, or other discriminatory reason, the union may have breached its duty of fair representation and you may have a claim.
If this happens, you can ask a union officer or someone else who holds a position of power in the union to file a grievance for you. Unions do not have to represent all employees in all grievances. But the union should agree at least to investigate your complaint and, depending on how strong the union representative feels your case is, ...
If you feel that the union has treated you in one of these three ways and has breached its duty of fair representation, you may bring legal action against it. However, the duty of fair representation does not require the union to pursue all grievances until the final possible stage of the grievance procedure or to take all the steps ...
Questioning employees about their union sympathies or activities in circumstances that tend to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act . Promising benefits to employees to discourage their union support. Transferring, laying off, terminating, assigning employees more difficult work tasks, ...
Examples of employer conduct that violates the law: Threatening employees with loss of jobs or benefits if they join or vote for a union or engage in protected concerted activity. Threatening to close the plant if employees select a union to represent them. Questioning employees about their union sympathies or activities in circumstances ...
Unions are obligated to tell all covered employees about this option, which was created by a Supreme Court ruling and is known as the Beck right . An employee may object to union membership on religious grounds, but in that case, must pay an amount equal to dues to a nonreligious charitable organization.
27 states have banned union-security agreements by passing so-called "right to work" laws. In these states, it is up to each employee at a workplace to decide whether or not to join the union and pay dues, even though all workers are protected by the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union.
The National Labor Relations Act forbids employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights relating to organizing, forming, joining or assisting a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes, or from working together to improve terms and conditions of employment, or refraining from any such activity. Similarly, labor organizations may not restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of these rights.
The union’s role, and authority, is governed in B.C. by the Labour Relations Code or, in the federal context, the Canada Labour Code. The union is, in effect, your lawyer in relation to your employment. However, your union must adhere to certain rules in representing you.
It has been stated in case law that a union is prohibited under the “duty of fair representation” from engaging in any of three forms of misconduct in representing employees. First, the union must not be motivated by bad faith in the sense of personal hostility, political revenge or dishonesty.
Union members who are unhappy with the representation they’re being provided by their union will sometimes seek outside legal advice. In doing so, they should first understand the implications of taking that step and the limited role an outside lawyer may have.
It will not normally be adjudicating your grievance. While there may be good reasons for you to seek outside legal counsel in relation to your union’s representation of you as its member, there are very good reasons to first exhaust every opportunity to resolve that dispute directly with your union representatives.
This is a complaint against your union, not against your employer. Although the dispute about which you are unhappy may have arisen in the context of a grievance against your employer, the labour board will be looking at whether your union handled that matter in accordance with its duties towards you as a member.
If you are called into a meeting by your employer and you believe that they are preparing to terminate your employment or otherwise discriminate against you in some fashion, you may want to first reach out to an employment attorney to discuss your situation.
If you do refuse to attend the meeting, then your employer can (and quite possibly will) discipline you, and it may make it more difficult to pursue a legitimate legal claim .
When an employee is called into a meeting with his/her boss or Human Resources, panic will sometimes set in. There may have been certain events that led up to this meeting which indicate to the employee that the meeting is not likely to go well. It could be that the employee.
Generally speaking, an employee cannot bring his/her lawyer to a meeting at work. There is no absolute right to counsel that affords employees the right to have an attorney involved in employment matters.
Additionally, if given enough notice, an attorney may be able to reach out to your employer’s legal counsel prior to the meeting date to present them with certain legal claims.
You can request that a third party be present in the meeting to witness everything. This third party could be a co-worker, someone from HR, or someone from management. However, there is nothing that requires an employer to provide a third-party witness in a meeting. In Texas, individuals have the legal right to record conversations ...
In Texas, individuals have the legal right to record conversations that they are a party to . That means that you cannot be charged criminally for recording a conversation that you are a party to. However, employers may still have policies that prohibit employees from recording any conversations at work. It is important to first refer ...
An employer’s improper refusal to allow an employee to be represented at such meetings has broad consequences. An employer’s refusal may lead to an unfair labor practice charge under the Pennsylvania Public Employees Relations Act or a grievance under the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Further, if the employer refuses ...
In practical terms, once an employee requests that a representative be present and the requested representative is available, the employer essentially has two options: (1) grant the request; or (2) discontinue or cancel the interview.
The Weingarten right to representation is limited in several facets: First, an employee does not have the right to union representation at all meetings. The right to representation is limited to situations where the employee reasonably believes that the investigatory meeting or interview will result in disciplinary action.
As to this second option, it should be noted that the employer can decide not to meet with an employee in such instances and may continue the investigation without obtaining any information that the employee might furnish. The employee’s right is to have a representative at such meetings; it is not to have the meeting.
In 1975, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in National Labor Relations Board v. J. Weingarten, Inc. (“Weingarten”) gave employees the right to ask for a representative to be present at a disciplinary meeting with an employer. Specifically, in Weingarten, the U.S. Supreme Court held that ...
Second, administrators do not have an affirmative obligation to offer an employee union representation during an investigatory interview. Even during an investigatory interview, an employee must affirmatively request union representation before there can be a violation of his/her Weingarten rights.
Where the requested representative is unavailable, however, the employee does not have a right to be represented by that particular representative at that particular meeting. Thus, when an employee requests a union representative who is not available for the meeting, the employer is not required to postpone the meeting, ...
It could be a spouse or partner, a good friend, shop steward, or even a counselor in an employee assistance program (EAP).
If you’re thinking about filing suit, you probably want to speak to a lawyer. Confusing claims: There are some employment laws on the books that you might not be aware of, so you might have a case you don’t know about. And there are some laws you think exist, that don’t.
To attend a disciplinary meeting (take good notes, don’t sign anything except a form acknowledging receipt of the discipline , and sign “as to receipt only, rebuttal to follow); To sign documents you understand, like applications, insurance forms, and tax documents.
When a work situation has reached a level where initiating an agency complaint or process is being considered, an employee should approach the decision as objectively as possible, despite the fact that at such a point the situation likely is very emotionally charged.
Being taken seriously: Some employers don’t take you seriously unless you have representation.