[1] After completing the surveillance, the investigator informed the store manager of his presence and reported that he could find nothing wrong.

[1] The store manager then told the investigator that one coworker had reported that Collins failed to pay full price for a box of chicken she had purchased.

[5] As a result, the investigator terminated the questioning and the store manager asked Collins to keep the inquiry private.

[14] Additionally, the court argued that requiring a union representative any time the threat of discipline was present would extend the scope of the NLRA far too broadly.

[15] The NLRB appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted certiorari to hear the case.

[16] The Supreme Court, reversing the Fifth Circuit,[17] held that the NLRB decision was appropriate because its interpretation of the NLRA was permissible.

[19] This also led to the Court's observation that the NLRB can change its interpretation of the NLRA over time and is not required to comply with its earlier decisions.

[20] The Court held that in this case the NLRB's interpretation of Section 7 was permissible because union representation at employer inquiries constitutes "concerted activity for mutual aid or protection" under the statute.

[22] The Court also pointed out that requiring a union representative at inquiries was consistent with actual labor practice as something already found in many workplaces.

[23] As a result, the Court reversed and remanded directing the Fifth Circuit to enter a judgment enforcing the NLRB order.

§ 151, the Act declares that it is a goal of national labor policy to protect the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of ... mutual aid or protection.To that end, the Act is designed to eliminate the "inequality of bargaining power between employees ... and employers."

Requiring a lone employee to attend an investigatory interview which he reasonably believes may result in the imposition of discipline perpetuates the inequality the Act was designed to eliminate, and bars recourse to the safeguards the Act provided "to redress the perceived imbalance of economic power between labor and management."

Viewed in this light, the Board's recognition that § 7 guarantees an employee's right to the presence of a union representative at an investigatory interview in which the risk of discipline reasonably inheres is within the protective ambit of the section "read in the light of the mischief to be corrected and the end to be attained.'"

In other words, respondent would defer representation until the filing of a formal grievance challenging the employer's determination of guilt after the employee has been discharged or otherwise disciplined.

[26] Justice Powell argued that the NLRB's interpretation of Section 7 was impermissible because having a union representative present during an investigation is a matter left by the NLRA to the bargaining process.

[35] The NLRB further explained that a representative protects the interests not just of the individual employee, but of the entire collective bargaining unit.

[36] As a result, giving employees in non-unionized workplaces is like requiring the employer to deal with the equivalent of a union representative which is not intended by the NLRA.

Ohio,[38] the NLRB again extended the right to non-unionized workplaces, and this decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.