green
Positive treatment
35.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965
1995
2026
Cited for
At page 48 “under our decisions interrogation, not itself threatening, is not held to be an unfair labor practice unless it meets certain fairly severe standards.” · 47 citing cases
- Overstreet v. AJNC Indus. LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00730 (D. Nev. July 19, 2021).Was there an atmosphere of ‘unnatural formality’? 16 (5) Truthfulness of the reply. 17 Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964). “[D]etermining whether employee 18 questioning violates the Act does not require strict evaluation of ea…
- Time Warner v. NLRB, No. 18-2323 (L) (2d Cir. Dec. 10, 2020).Challenged conduct must infringe on a right protected by 13 Section 7 before it can constitute an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1). 14 See id. § 158(a)(1) (“It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer . . . to 15 interf…
- 800 River Road Operating Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 784 F.3d 902 (3d Cir. 2015).(Id. (citing Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1964)).) These factors, which we discuss below, include “an examination or consideration of the background of the interrogation; the nature of the information sought; the identity of the…
- Fernbach v. Raz Dairy, Inc., 881 F. Supp. 2d 452 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).The Second Circuit has identified several factors to be considered in making this determination, including “the historical background of employer-employee relations at the company, the nature of the information sought, the identity of the…
- Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Mkt., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 468 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2012).Instead, the record fully supports the Board’s conclusion that, under the five factors established in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1964), “the totality of the circumstances weighs in favor of concluding that the conversation [st…
- Seattle v. Pub. Emp. Relations Com'n, 249 P.3d 650 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).Union, Local 11 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 760 F.2d 1006 , 1009 (9th Cir.1985). [34] Bourne v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2nd Cir.1964). [35] See Pub.
- City of Seattle v. Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 160 Wash. App. 382 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).Bourne v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964).
- City of Vancouver v. Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 107 Wash. App. 694 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964); see also ITT Auto., 188 F.3d at 390 n.10; NLRB v. McCullough Envtl.
- Pub. Employees Relations v. City of Vancouver, 33 P.3d 74 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1964); see also ITT Automotive v. NLRB, 188 F.3d 375 , 390 n. 10 (6th Cir. 1999); NLRB v. McCullough Envtl.
- N.L.R.B. v. McCullough Env't Servs., Inc., No. 92-4459 (5th Cir. Nov. 2, 1993).We consider the following factors, first announced in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1964), in determining whether interrogation tends to be coercive: 1) the history of the employer's attitude toward its empl oyees; 2) the nature…
Show 37 more citing cases
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. McCullough Env't Servs., Inc., 5 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1993).We consider the following factors, first announced in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1964), in determining whether interrogation tends to be coercive: 1) the history of the employer’s attitude toward its employees; 2) the nature o…
- Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. N.L.R.B., No. 90-4892 (5th Cir. May 20, 1992).We again admonish the Board for refusing to comply with Fifth Circuit precedent by failing to apply the Bourne factors.21 Fortunately, however, the ALJ has supplied us 19 These criteria were originally enumerated by the Second Circuit in B…
- Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 957 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir. 1992).These criteria were originally enumerated by the Second Circuit in Bourne v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1964).
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Die Casting Corp., 728 F.2d 959 (7th Cir. 1984).In an effort to systematize the decision of coercive-interrogation cases, the courts, beginning with Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1964), have identified a number of factors as relevant to deciding whether a particular inquiry is…
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Vill. Ix, Inc., D/B/A Shenanigans, 723 F.2d 1360 (7th Cir. 1983).See, e.g., Pelton Casteel, Inc. v. NLRB, 627 F.2d 23, 31 (7th Cir.1980); Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1964); Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 N.L.R.B. 591 , 593 (1954).
- Excavation-Constr., Inc. v. The Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 660 F.2d 1015 (4th Cir. 1981).Co., etc., 469 F.2d 1016 (4th Cir. 1972), n. 9, p. 1020, has also adopted the Bourne standards as the “test to be applied to an interrogation in passing on whether it will support a finding of impropriety under the Act.” The Bourne , p. 48…
- Jeffrey Mfg. Div., Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 654 F.2d 944 (4th Cir. 1981).The company argues that the ALJ and the Board were required to judge the alleged interrogations according to the criteria set forth in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964).
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Alvin J. Bart & Co., Inc., 598 F.2d 1267 (2d Cir. 1979).Any coerciveness that might be thought to flow from Simmons’ supervisory status alone would have been quite minimal because his supervisory prerogatives were marginal at best. 6 See Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1974); Internati…
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., & Local 107, Int'l Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Afl-Cio, Intervenor v. Solboro Knitting Mills, Inc., 572 F.2d 936 (2d Cir. 1978).We think that the AU properly found that the questioning thus consti *940 tuted an unfair labor practice within the requirements of Struksnes Construction Co., 165 N.L.R.B. 1062 (1967) and Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964).
- Fed.-Mogul Corp., Petitioner-Cross v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Respondent-Cross, 566 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir. 1978). B., 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2 Cir. 1964) as follows: “(1) The background, i. e. is there a history of employer hostility and discrimination? (2) The nature of the information sought, e. g. did the interrogator appear to be seeking information on…
- Midwest Reg'l Jt. Bd., Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 564 F.2d 434 (D.C. Cir. 1977).As summarized in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964) these criteria include: 1.
- Midwest Reg'l Jt. Bd., Amalgamated Clothing Workers of Am., Afl-Cio v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Amf Head Div. of Amf, Inc., Intervenor. Amf Head Div. of Amf, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Midwest Reg'l Jt. Bd., Intervenor, 564 F.2d 434 (D.C. Cir. 1977).As summarized in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964) these criteria include: 27 1.
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Monroe Tube Co., Inc., 545 F.2d 1320 (2d Cir. 1976).“The rule in this Circuit is that em-. ployer interrogation is unlawful if it is coercive in light of all of the surrounding circumstances.” Retired Persons Pharmacy v. N.L.R.B., 519 F.2d 486, 492 (2d Cir. 1975). “[Interrogation, not itsel…
- Florida Steel Corp., Petitioner-Cross v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Respondent-Cross United Steelworkers of Am., Afl-Cio, Petitioner-Cross v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Respondent-Cross, 529 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1976).NLRB v. Varo, Inc., 425 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir. 1970); NLRB v. Camco, Inc., 340 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1965); cert. denied, 382 U.S. 926 , 86 S.Ct. 313 , 15 L.Ed.2d 339 (1965); Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964).
- Florida Steel Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 529 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1976).NLRB v. Varo, Inc., 425 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir. 1970); NLRB v. Camco, Inc., 340 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1965); cert. denied, 382 U.S. 926 , 86 S.Ct. 313 , 15 L.Ed.2d 339 (1965); Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964).
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Huntsville Mfg. Co., a Subsidiary of M. Howenstein & Son, Inc., 514 F.2d 723 (5th Cir. 1975).See also N.L.R.B. v. Camco, Inc., 340 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1965); Bourne v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964).
- Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Local 633 Of New Hampshire v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 509 F.2d 490 (D.C. Cir. 1974).A number of these factors were enunciated in the leading case of Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964) and other factors were suggested in a subsequent case in the Fifth Circuit. 15 Virtually every Circuit Court of Appeals has ado…
- Trico Prods. Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 489 F.2d 347 (2d Cir. 1973).Neither the Administrative Law Judge nor the Board made any attempt to analyze this in light of the five standards which we announced in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2 Cir. 1964), and have applied in cases too numerous for citation.
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Midwest Hanger Co. & Liberty Eng'g Corp., 474 F.2d 1155 (8th Cir. 1973).These standards had been previously enunciated by the Second Circuit in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964). 5 In the instant case certain of the circumstances point to the interrogation as having a coercive effect.
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Scoler's Inc., 466 F.2d 1289 (2d Cir. 1972). The election was held on September 9, but since the instant litigation had begun on the previous day, the ballots have been impounded. 5 The principal issues raised on this appeal are (1) whether there is substantial evidence in the record…
- Self-Reliance Ukrainian Am. Coop. Ass'n, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 461 F.2d 33 (7th Cir. 1972).Bourne v. N L R B, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2nd Cir. 1964); N L R B v. My Store, Inc., 345 F.2d 494, 497 (7th Cir. 1965).
- Self-Reliance Ukrainian Am. Coop. Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 461 F.2d 33 (7th Cir. 1972).Bourne v. N L R B, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2nd Cir. 1964); N L R B v. My Store, Inc., 345 F.2d 494, 497 (7th Cir. 1965).
- Utrad Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 454 F.2d 520 (7th Cir. 1972). There was no hint of reprisal for Union support. 22 Only one of the indicia used in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964), to identify coercive interrogations is present: a history of employer hostility and discrimination.
- J. J. Newberry Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 442 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1971).In Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964), we held that interrogation, not itself threatening, is not an unfair labor practice unless “fairly severe standards” are met, including: (1) The background, i. e. is there a history of emp…
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Prof'l Tape Co., Inc., 422 F.2d 989 (7th Cir. 1970). B., 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964).
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Builders Supply Co. Of Houston, 410 F.2d 606 (5th Cir. 1969).This is one of those frequent situations wherein “[T]he Board could properly find that this interrogation was coercive since it took place in an atmosphere of active opposition to the union, Bourne v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir., 19…
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dorn's Transp. Co., Inc., 405 F.2d 706 (2d Cir. 1969).Applying the criteria set forth in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2 Cir. 1964), 3 he found no background of employer hostility and discrimination, no evidence that the interrogator appeared to be seeking information on which to take acti…
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Master Touch Dental Labs., Inc., 405 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1968).This court stated in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964), that “under our decisions interrogation, not itself threatening, is not held to be an unfair labor practice unless it meets certain fairly severe standards.” Three of the…
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hotel Conquistador, Inc., D/B/A Hotel Tropicana, 398 F.2d 430 (9th Cir. 1968).We think the Second Circuit’s opinion in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.1964) (per curiam), provides helpful guidelines for dealing with the question of whether an impermissible “interrogation” has taken place.
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Big Ben Dep't Stores, Inc., 396 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1968).The interrogation does not nearly meet the standards of non-coercive interrogation laid down by this court in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (C.A. 2, 1964).
- The Morse Instrument Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 388 F.2d 1 (6th Cir. 1967). In Bourne v. N.L.R.B., 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir.), the following five standards are announced to determine whether interrogation, not itself threatening, is an unfair labor practice: 20 '(1) The background, i.e. is there a history of employ…
- Jervis Corp., Bolivar Div. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 387 F.2d 107 (6th Cir. 1967). Still further, it was held in NLRB v. Covington Motor Co., 344 F.2d 136 (4th Cir. 1965), that the act of asking an employee how many employees had signed authorization cards was not a violation of the Act 3 A discussion of helpful guidelin…
- Bryant Chucking Grinder Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 389 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1967). The Board could properly find that this interrogation was coercive since it took place in an atmosphere of active opposition to the union, Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964), without explanation to the employees of the purpose…
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. S & H Grossinger's Inc., 372 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1967).The evidence as to unlawful employer interrogation of employees meets the “fairly severe standards” set forth in Bourne v. National Labor Relations Board, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964).
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Lexington Chair Co., 361 F.2d 283 (4th Cir. 1966).Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964); accord, NLRB v. Cameo, Inc., 340 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 926 , 86 S.Ct. 313 , 15 L.Ed.2d 339 (1965).
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. D'armigene, Inc., 353 F.2d 406 (2d Cir. 1965).B., 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2 Cir. 1964); N. L.
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. M & B Headwear Co., Inc., 349 F.2d 170 (4th Cir. 1965). Notes: 1 Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 48 (2d Cir. 1964) 22 ALBERT V.
At page 49 cited at this page · 2 citing cases
- Renew Home Health v. NLRB, 95 F.4th 231 (5th Cir. 2024).We consider the eight factors established in Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 49 (2d Cir. 1964), when analyzing a coercive interrogation charge.
- UNF West, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 844 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2016). Bourne v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 47, 49 (2d Cir. 1964). 6 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bonnie BOURNE, an Individual, D/B/A Bourne Co., Petitioner,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
408, Docket 28583.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 15, 1964.
Walter Beck, of Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, New York City (Charles J. Moos, of Fink, Weinberger & Levin, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner., Melvin Pollack, Atty., National Labor Relations Bd., Washington, D. C. (Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Duane R. Batista, Washington, D. C., Atty., on the brief), for respondent.
Kaufman, Hays, Marshall.
Cited by 132 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
This is a petition to set aside an order of the Board, 144 N. L. R. B. No. 75, in which the Board found that petitioner violated Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1) (1958). Petitioner was ordered to cease and desist from:
“creating an impression among employees that their union activities are under surveillance; instructing employees to dissuade other employees from joining or engaging in activities in behalf of a labor organization; giving employees money or other benefits to influence them in regard to their union activities; [and] interrogating employees concerning their union activities * -x- -x- »
The Board requests that its order be enforced.
We hold that with respect to surveillance, instructing employees to dissuade union activity, and payment of money, the Board’s order is authorized by law and supported by substantial evidence, Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L. Ed. 456 (1951), but that the.facts established before the Board are insufficient to sustain the broad ban on interrogation. We accordingly set aside the order with respect to interrogation and grant enforcement of the other portions of the order.
.Under our decisions interrogation, not itself threatening, is not held to be an unfair labor practice unless it meets certain fairly severe standards. N. L. R. B. v. Firedoor Corp., 291 F.2d 328 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 921, 82 S.Ct. 242, 7 L.Ed.2d 136 (1961); N. L. R. B. v. Syracuse Color Press, Inc., 209 F.2d 596 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 347 U. S. 966, 74 S.Ct. 777, 98 L.Ed. 1108 (1954); N. L. R. B. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 192 F.2d 160 (2d Cir. 1951).
These include:
(1) The background, i. e. is there a history of employer hostility and discrimination ?
(2) The nature of the information sought, e. g. did the interrogator appear to be seeking information on which to base taking action against individual employees ?
(3) The identity of the questioner, i. e. how high was he in the company hierarchy ?
(4) Place and method of interrogation, e. g. was employee called from work to the boss’s office? Was there an atmosphere of “unnatural formality”?
(5) Truthfulness of the reply.
Examination of the record, interpreted in the light most favorable to the Board, indicates that the interrogation involved here did not in any realistic sense meet the tests set forth.
(1) There is very little to show any pattern of employer hostility and discrimination.
(2) The information sought was quite general. “How is the union doing?”; “Are the employees for the union?” rather than specifically “Who are the ring leaders?” “Who has joined?” etc.
(3) The principal interrogation was by low ranking supervisors.
(4) The employees were interrogated informally while at work.
(5) In general the replies were truthful, i. e. there was no evidence that the interrogation actually inspired fear.
The order of the Board is modified by striking from paragraph 1 the words “interrogating employees concerning their union activities.” Enforcement of the order as thus modified is granted.