Document: 388 U.S. 26 87 S.Ct. 1792 18 L.Ed.2d 1027 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.GREAT DANE TRAILERS, INC. No. 781. Argued April 19, 1967. Decided June 12, Arnold Ordman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. O.R.T. Bowden, Jacksonville, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The issue here is whether, in absence proof an antiunion motivation, employer may be held to have violated §§ 8(a)(3) and (1) National Labor Relations Act1 when it refused pay striking employees vacation benefits accrued under a terminated collective bargaining agreement while announced intention such striker replacements, returning strikers, nonstrikers who had been at work on certain date during strike. 2 respondent company union2 entered into which was effective by its terms until March 31, 1963. contained commitment met enumerated qualifications.3 In essence, agreed specified who, preceding year, worked least 1,525 hours. It also provided that, case 'lay-off, termination or quitting,' served more than 60 days year would entitled pro rata shares their benefits. Benefits were paid Friday nearest July each year. 3 '(b) To qualify said vacation, necessary that employee shall total fifteen hundred twentyfive (1525) hours year; any time lost, however, because industrial accident employed this Company count as part qualifying time. 4 '(d) Employees less sixty (60) next after employment will receive no but following due accordance with above requirements, plus extra amount worked. 5 '(e) lay-off quitting, has share vacation. 6 '(f) All 1st, except outlined paragraph (d).' 7 temporarily extended beyond date, 30, 1963, union gave required 15 days' notice strike over issues remained unsettled table. Accordingly, May 16, approximately 350 company's 400 commenced lasted December 26, continued operate strike, using nonstrikers, persons hired replacements some original strikers later abandoned returned work.4 On number demanded from company. rejected demand, basing response assertion all contractual obligations and, therefore, none right pay. Shortly thereafter, grant pay—in amounts subject conditions set out expired agreement—to reported 1, denied these payments founded stated they merely reflected new 'policy' unilaterally adopted. 8 refusal coupled formed bases unfair labor practice complaint filed Board still progess. Violations charged. A hearing before trial examiner found action regard constituted discrimination discourage membership, well unlawful interference protected activity. He recommended ordered cease desist strikers. Board, veviewing record, adopted Trial Examiner's conclusions remedy.5 9 petition enforcement order Court Appeals Fifth Circuit. That court first dealt contention lacked jurisdiction should relegated either table lawsuit § 301 Act,6 since basic question one contract interpretation application. noted policy relating clearly concerned 'term condition employment'; alleged discriminated between nonstriking term employment, 'an charge simplest terms' properly exercised jurisdiction.7 Reviewing substantive aspects Board's decision next, although proved, conclusion committed not well-founded inasmuch there affirmative showing motivation membership interfere exercise rights. Despite fact itself introduced evidence legitimate business purpose underlying discriminatory action, speculated might motivated desire '(1) reduce expenses; (2) encourage longer tenure among present employees; (3) early leaves immediately periods.' Believing possibility existence motives sufficient overcome inference improper motive flowed conduct itself, order. 363 F.2d 130 (1966). We granted certiorari determine whether treatment consistent recent decisions 385 1000, 716, 17 541 (1967). 10 charged grounded primarily requires specifically find resulting discouragement membership. American Ship Building Co. v. 380 300, 311, 85 955, 963, 13 855 (1965). There little result form. Comar e Republic Aviation Corp. 324 793, 65 982, 89 L.Ed. 1372 (1945), Local 357, Intern. Broth. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen Helpers America 365 667, 81 835, 11 (1961). Some forth agreement, other employees8 engaged concerted activity Similarly, can doubt capable discouraging organization within meaning statute. Discouraging 'includes participation activities * strike.' Erie Resistor Corp., 373 221, 233, 83 1139, 1148, 308 (1963). act paying group announcing extinction same another are distinguishable only surely effect future But inquiry does usually stop point. statutory language 'discrimination discourage' means finding violation normally turns purpose. 955 upon element based enforcement, we now turn. three opinions considered context asserted violations. supra; Brown, 278, 980, 839 (1965); supra. Resistor, supra, 227, 1144, make circumstances lawful. conduct, so 'inherently destructive interests' deemed proscribed without need motive. U.S., 287, 986, 963. is, carries 'unavoidable consequences foresaw he must intended' thus bears 'its own indicia intent.' 228, 231, 1145—1147. If falls destructive' category, burden explaining away, justifying characterizing 'his actions something different appear face,' if fails, made out.' Id., 1145. And even come forward counter explanations his situation, nevertheless draw duty proper balance justifications invasion rights light Act policy. 229, hand, 'the harm comparatively slight, substantial end served, employers' prima facie lawful,' made. 289, 987; 311—313, 963—964. 12 From review our decisions, several principles controlling importance distilled. First, reasonably concluded employer's important rights, needed introduces considerations. Second, adverse 'comparatively slight,' proved sustain conduct. Thus, once could adversely affected extent, establish objectives most accessible him. Applying then, us decide degree challenged As correctly noted, came 134. simply did meet proof, misconstrued function judicial proceeded nonetheless speculate what Since carrying potential appeared supported evidence, Universal Camera 340 474, 71 456, 95 456 (1951), sustained. 14 judgment reversed remanded directions enforce ordered. Reversed directions. 16 HARLAN, whom STEWART joins, dissenting. Because I think puts premise misinterprets NLRB C & Plywood 421, 559, proposed determining rule distillation prior my view, substantially inaccurate, am constrained express dissent opinion. believe Circuit analyzed problem, affirmed. begins stating 'accrued' contract, implies arbitrarily disregarded Great Dane punish those engaging Were established facts case, difficulty concurring reached majority. Employer undercuts Act, amended, 61 Stat. 140, inferable, (1). 982. dispute frivolous determined examination,1 framed prpe rly us. Moreover, contrary Court's assertion, neither nor lower limited considering issue, both recognized limitation powers 301(a) Management 1947.2 19 disclaimed 'interpreting parties' 'strikers treated uniformly respect whatever accrue latter relationship.' explained force use criteria prevent requirement recipient employment' declared 'policy.' explicitly acted improperly withhold *.' 130, 133. (Emphasis original.) correct disregarding issue. says upholds consider faced situation taken unilateral wages attempting justify privilege. interposition defense deprive 'enforce right' where 'not construed extent given employer.' 428, 564. Also involved contain arbitration clause strong favoring infringed action. 426, 562. Here statement imply solely breach duty, seems invoke remedy arbitration.3 circumstances, policy, bottom, constitutes absent independent itself. 20 attempts resolve one. view 'come justifications' whenever proceeding. Prior today's decision, violations grouped two general categories: serving purposes inherently severely wher i mproper inferred themselves, instance, 'demonstrably devoid significant service end,' evincing animus violation. 286, 985. unable conclude added gloss second whose contours fixed years ago Brown. 21 Under formulation, presumption raises. This alteration cases convenience resolution alone may, unfortunately, portend shift manner deciding 8(a)(3). event, unwise. 22 'legitimate test interpreted requiring nonfrivolous operative usual then penalized anticipating arguing Board. Such penalty particularly clarity pronouncements mere animus,' 288, purpose.' 313, 965. 23 word 'substantial' formulation give power formerly like seize evaluate merits weigh them against befalls union's interests meaning, impinge accepted principle bargain collectively entail 'right' insist one's position free economic disadvantage.' 309, 962. Employers always take reasonable measures pressuring employees, including extreme measure hiring permanent having inquire 'substantiality' justifications. Mackay Radio Telegraph Co., 304 333, 58 904, 82 1381. change rule, though assume not, do argument point parties careful discussion. 24 opinion, fell category pointed inferred, F.2d., 134 sole drawn Nor here, super-seniority plan application common law man intend foreseeable conduct.' Officers, Union Comm. Telegraphers Union, AFL 347 17, 45, 74 323, 338, 98 455. differences are, recognize, preclude analogy. Unlike granting superseniority, long-term impact situation. weapon superseniority plan. Notice presence eligibility passed. record shows employ combat successfully replaced almost employees.4 Examiner claims particular demonstrated animus. 25 Plainly lest 'rights' commencement Equally plainly, suit secure 'rights,' indeed exist. inappropriate becloud sound interpretations reach sympathetic result. (1), 140—141, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3) Interat ional Brotherhood Boilermakers, Iron Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers Helpers, AFL—CIO. Article VIII 'Vacations.' read, pertinent part: '(a) Each qualified covered continuous agreeable Company, seven (7) consecutive (40) rate existing beginning employee, five (5) years' service, fourteen (14) days, eighty (80) Any waive right, services employer, period lieu thereof, becomes otherwise received performed period. October 8, After replacement, rehired company, apparently employees. 8(a)(1). These 301, 1947, 156, 185. 301. agree complaint, alleging charge. complained jurisdiction. C. 486 (1967); Mastro Plastics 270, 76 349, 100 309 (1956). Cf. Smith Evening News Assn., 371 195, S.Ct 267, 246 (1962). This, course, say every elements injured party automatically deprived proceed speedier expensive lawsuit. 429—430, 564, 565. 2(3), 137, 152(3), declares: 'The 'employee' include individual ceased consequence of, connection with, current obtained regular equivalent elected terminate raising survived termination. actually initial choice lay employer. Thus obligated weeks' additional pay, choose instead cash outlay. Termination precluded choice. 185(a). legislative history discussed 427, 563. XIV intent modify contract. disclaimer disputes arising By 75% replaced. August coming head 90%

Category: 6