Document: 375 U.S. 405 84 S.Ct. 457 11 L.Ed.2d 435 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.EXCHANGE PARTS COMPANY. No. 26. Argued Dec. 11, 1963. Decided Jan. 13, 1964. Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Karl H. Mueller, Fort Worth, Tex., respondent. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case presents a question concerning limitations which § 8(a)(1) National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 452 (1935), as amended, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1), places on right an employer to confer economic benefits his employees shortly before representation election. The precise issue is whether that section prohibits conferral such benefits, without more, where employer's purpose affect outcome We granted Board's petition certiorari, 373 931, 83 1533, 10 689, clear up possible conflict between decision below and those other Courts Appeals1 important national labor policy. For reasons given in this opinion, we conclude judgment must be reversed. 2 respondent, Exchange Parts Company, engaged business rebuilding automobile parts Texas. Prior November 1959 its were not represented by union. On 9, 1959, International Brotherhood Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers Helpers, AFL—CIO, advised union was conducting organizational campaign at plant majority had designated their bargaining representative. 16 petitioned Board conducted hearing December 29, February 19, 1960, issued order directing election held. held March 18, 1960. 3 At two meetings 4 5, C. V. McDonald, Vice-President General Manager Parts, announced 'floating holiday' would fall 26 there additional 25, six days after order, dinner McDonald told they could decide extra day vacation 1960 or taken birthdays. voted latter. also referred forthcoming one which, words trial examiner, 'determine * (they) wished hand over speak act themselves.' He stated distorted some facts pointed out obtained urged all vote sent letter spoke 'the Empty Promises Union' fact it Compan puts things your envelope *.' After mentioning number said: 'The Union can't put any envelope—only Company can do that.'2 Further on, stated: '* (I)t didn't take get won't improvements future.' Accompanying detailed statement company since 1949 estimate menetary value employees. Included birthday holiday, new system computing overtime during holiday weeks effect increasing wages weeks, schedule enabled extend vacations sandwiching them weekends. Although asserts policy behind latter established earlier, first general announcement changes In ensuing lost. 5 Board, affirming findings found grant arranged with intention inducing against It conduct violated Act appropriate order. enforcement Court Appeals rejected finding timed influence accepted respect propriety controversy here. However, noting into unconditionally permanent basis, no has suggested implication withdrawn if workers union,' 304 F.2d 368, 375, court denied believed unfair practice under these circumstances. 6 Section makes 'to interfere with, restrain, coerce exercise rights guaranteed 7.' 7 provides: 'Employees shall have self-organization, form, join, assist organizations, bargain collectively through representatives own choosing, engage concerted activities collective mutual aid protection, refrain from except extent may affected agreement requiring membership organization condition employment authorized 8(a)(3).' 157. 8 think mistaken concluding employee while pending, union, does 'interfere with' protected organize. 9 broad establish employes organize interference.' Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 324 793, 798, 65 982, 985, 89 L.Ed. 1372. doubt only intrusive threats promises but immediately favorable undertaken express impinging upon freedom choice unionization reasonably calculated effect. Medo Photo Supply 321 678, 686, 64 830, 834, 88 1007, action agents induced favors bestowed well domination.' already agent offer 'favors' response suggestion leave bestowed, principles dictated result are fully applicable danger inherent well-timed increases fist inside velvet glove. Employees likely miss inference source now conferred future flow dry obliged.3 diminished if, case, permanently unconditionally. But absence conditions pertaining particular controlling significance presumed renegotiation existing arise future; and, course, presumption tenable. Other violation kind involved See, e.g., N.L.R.B. Pyne Molding Corp., supra; Indiana Metal Products supra. true, out, most cases increase regarded 'one part overall program interference restraint employer,' F.2d, 372, questioned stood isolation. unlawful often indication motive relevant legality grant; when here otherwise established, free violate conferring simply because refrains other, more obvious violations. cannot agree will 'ironic' 'discouraging labor.' 376. beneficence ephemeral prompted threat subsequently removed. Insulating good sort deprives little lasting value. Reversed. 202 613 (C.A.7th Cir.); 226 818 (C.A.2d Cir.). italics appear original letter. made almost explicit Parts' 4, quoted, (benefits) that.' (Original italics.) place reliance, however, respondent dissociated conduct. 8(c) 61 142 (1947), 158(c), provides expression dissemination 'any views, argument, opinion' 'shall constitute evidence provisions contains reprisal force promise benefit.'

Category: 6