# Cook Paint and Varnish Company v. National Labor Relations Board

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · April 2, 1981 · 648 F.2d 712

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467922

## Case

- **Full name:** COOK PAINT AND VARNISH COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** April 2, 1981
- **Citations:** 648 F.2d 712; 208 U.S. App. D.C. 339; 106 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3016; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 14690
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Robb
- **Judges:** Wright, Robb, Edwards
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467922

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an employer may threaten an employee with discipline in seeking to compel compliance with investigatory questions regarding employee misconduct if the employer’s inquiry is still in the investigatory stages

## Opinion text

ROBB, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part:
I concur in Judge Edwards’ opinion except that I would not remand to the Board the matter of the Steward Whitwell.
On the remand the Board of course will be required to reach a conclusion based on the evidence in the record. In my judgment however there is nothing in the record to suggest that Whitwell was entitled to special protection because of his status as a *726 union steward. As Judge Edwards points out the questioning of Whitwell “was purely factual in nature, concerning solely the events that occurred at the plant on February 3.” (Op., at 714). In other words Whitwell was interviewed simply as a witness, not as a steward, and the questioning had nothing to do with his activities or functions as a steward. On these facts I think Whitwell’s status as a steward did not insulate him from his duty to disclose what he knew about the incident of February 3.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9467922. Public record. Not legal advice.