1. What Section 7 guarantee does the Court stress in its opinion?
2. Does the Court’s opinion give an unlimited right to an employee to have a union representative present when the employee is being questioned?
3. What is the Court’s primary reason for leaving unfair labor practice determinations to the NLRB rather than the courts?

[During an investigatory interview at which an employee of Weingarten was being interrogated about reported thefts at a Weingarten store, the employee requested, but was denied, the presence at the interview of her union representative. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, which held that the employer had committed an unfair labor practice. The NLRB issued a ceaseand desist order; however, the court of appeals reversed, holding that an employee has no need for union assistance at such an interview. The decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.]
BRENNAN, J.…
The Board's construction that Section 7 creates a statutory right in an employee to refuse to submit without union representation to an interview which he reasonably fears may result in his discipline was announced in its decision and order of January 28, 1972, in Quality Mfg. Co., 195 N.L.R.B. 197…. In its opinions in that case and in Mobil Oil Corp., 196 N.L.R.B. 1052, decided May 12, 1972, three months later, the Board shaped the contours and limits of the statutory right.
First, the right inheres in Section 7's guarantee of the right of employees to act in concert for mutual aid and protection. In Mobil Oil, the Board stated:
An employee's right to union representation upon request is based on Section 7 of the Act which guarantees the right of employees to act in concert for "mutual aid and protection." The denial of this right has a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, and coerce employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Thus, it is a serious violation of the employee's individual right to engage in concerted activity by seeking the assistance of his statutory representative if the employer denies the employee's request and compels the employee to appear unassisted at an interview which may put his job security in jeopardy. Such a dilution of the employee's right to act collectively to protect his job interests is, in our view, unwarranted interference with his right to insist on concerted protection, rather than individual self-protection, against possible adverse employer action.
Second, the right arises only in situations where the employee requests representation. In other words, the employee may forgo his guaranteed right and, if he prefers, participate in an interview unaccompanied by his union representative.
Third, the employee's right to request representation as a condition of participation in an interview is limited to situations where the employee reasonably believes the investigation will result in disciplinary action. Thus the Board stated in Quality:
We would not apply the rule to such runof the-mill shop-floor conversations as, for example, the giving of instructions or training or needed corrections of work techniques. In such cases there cannot normally be any reasonable basis for an employee to fear that any adverse impact may result from the interview, and thus we would then see no reasonable basis for him to seek the assistance of his representative.
Fourth, exercise of the right may not interfere with legitimate employer prerogatives. The employer has no obligation to justify his refusal to allow union representation, and despite refusal, the employer is free to carry on his inquiry without interviewing the employee, and thus leave to the employee the choice between having an interview unaccompanied by his representative, or having no interview and forgoing any benefits that might be derived from one….
Fifth, the employer has no duty to bargain with any union representativewho may be permitted to attend the investigatory interview. The Board said in Mobil, "We are not giving the Union any particular rights with respect to pre-disciplinary discussionswhich it otherwise was not able to secure during collective bargaining negotiations."…The Board thus adhered to its decisions distinguishing between disciplinary and investigatory interviews, imposing a mandatory affirmative obligation to meet with the union representative only in the case of the disciplinary interview. Texaco, Inc.,Houston Producing Division, 168 NLRB 361 (1967)….