Document: 405 U.S. 117 92 S.Ct. 798 31 L.Ed.2d 79 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.Robert SCRIVENER, dba AA Electric Company. No. 70—267. Argued Jan. 12, 1972. Decided Feb. 23, Syllabus Employer's discharge of employees because they gave written sworn statements to a National Labor Relations Board field examiner investigating an unfair labor practice charge filed against the employer, but who had neither nor testified at formal hearing on charge, constituted violation § 8(a)(4) Act. Pp. 121—125. 435 F.2d 1296, reversed and remanded. William Terry Bray, Austin, Tex., for petitioner. Donald W. Jones, Springfield, Mo., respondent. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 Section 8 Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U.S.C. 158, provides: 2 'Sec. 8. (a) It shall be employer— 3 '(1) interfere with, restrain, or coerce in exercise rights guaranteed section 7; '(4) otherwise discriminate employee he has charges given testimony under this Act.' 4 7 157, 5 7. Employees have right self-organization, form, join, assist organizations, bargain collectively through representatives their own choosing, engage other concerted activities purpose collective bargaining mutual aid protection . ..' 6 This case presents issue whether employer's retaliatory statement not it, constitutes 8(a)(1) The Board, with one member participating, unanimously held that it was. 177 N.L.R.B. 504 (1969). United States Court Appeals Eighth Circuit, by unanimous panel vote, denied enforcement. 1296 (1971). did reach issues raised employer. We granted certiorari order review decision appeared important impact upon administration 404 821, 75, 30 49 * There is record, credited trial adoted following effect: respondent Robert Scrivener small electrical contractor Missouri. He does business individual proprietor name On March 18, 1968, five Scrivener's six signed cards authorizing union1 represent them bargaining. next day agent Moore advised union's majority status asked negotiate contract. examined cards, refused request. 9 then visited his jobsites complained about action. 20 dismissed card-signers Cockrum, Smith, Wilson, hired Hunt, journeyman, Statton, helper. Hunt worked prior occasions. 10 21 union alleging company violated §§ 8(a)(1), (3), (5) 26 three dischargees returned work. day, however, Cockrum Smith again were released ground there was lack two new Perryman, sole nonsigner among original employees, retained. recalled April and, card-signers, except continued work until 18. 11 17 from Board's regional office met discussed been filed. That evening interviewed hall. took affidavits all working Scrivener. 18 inquired least men before. At end four statements; so explanation no do. Statton houses 11-unit apartment building construction time. 12 May 13 amended adding allegation dismissal connection earlier 8(a)(4). Three early June. fourth never recalled. A complaint issued both added allegation. II. 14 agreement examiner, concluded 'in retaliation having evidence which against' Scrivener; '(t)he investigation integral essential stage proceedings'; conduct N.L.R.B., 504. customary cease desist, reinstate back pay, post notices issued. concluded, disagreement dissenting, 'that will effectuate policies Act assert jurisdiction herein over alleged independent unrelated violations Act,' those portions complaint. Id., 504, 505. 15 Appeals, per curiam, relying its NLRB v. Ritchie Mfg. Co., 354 90 (CA8 1965), 'encompass giving examiners.' In court stated, 'We are reluctant hold can extended cover preliminary preparations testimony.' F.2d, 101.2 present case, uphold finding challenged discharges well since '(t)o do would overrule implicitly, we prepared take action.' 1297. III 16 view serves protect reprisal only filing hearing, affords him participating investigative or, particular, affidavit examiner. disagree several reasons. 1. Construing during stage, testimony, comports objective section. Black, uncertain terms, spelled out congressional purpose: 19 'Congress made clear wishes persons information such practices completely free coercion reporting Board. shown adoption makes employer discrimiante charges. And unlawful seek restrain file charges' (citations omitted). Nash Florida Industrial Comm'n, 389 235, 238, 88 362, 365, 438 (1967). complete freedom necessary, said, 'to prevent channels being dried up intimidation prospective complainants witnesses.' John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. NLRB, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 261, 263, 191 483, 485 (1951). also consistent fact initiate proceedings; implementation dependent 'upon initiative persons.' supra, U.S., S.Ct., 365; Union Marine & Shipbuilding Workers, 391 418, 424, 1717, 1721, 706 (1968). 2. Act's reference 'has testimony,' could read strictly confined testimony. more broadly. textual analysis alone, presence preceding words discriminate' reveals, think, particularly word 'otherwise,' intent part Congress afford broad rather than narrow employee. 8(a)(4)'s hereinabove described. similar question respect 'evidence' 11(1) (2) 161(1) (2), considered Wyman-Gordon 394 759, 768—769, 1426, 1430—1431, 22 709 (1969), resolved construction.3 precedent pertinent here. 3. interpretation accords entertained 35 years. origin Recovery 48 195. Executive Order 6711, 15, 1934, (10 NRA Codes Fair Competition 949), provided, 'No dismiss demote any making violation. .' first interpreted phrase relating NIRA. New York Rapid Transit Corp., Dec. 192 (1934) (affidavits); Ralph A. Freundlich, Inc., 147, 148 (1935) (state testimony). 'testimony,' 'evidence,' appears. But language described 'merely reiteration' stated 'need provision attested' above-cited decisions. Comparison S. 2926 (73d Cong.) 1958 (74th Cong.), Senate Committee Print 29, Leg. Hist. 1319, 1355 (1949).4 23 4. interpretation, our view, squares practicalities appropriate agency An participates may called formally testify discharged before testify. His contribution might merely cumulative settled hearing. Which receive statutory should turn vagaries selection process events relation need protection. make less sense inception (by charge) final, presentation, participation developmental stages fall between these points unequal inconsistent needed preserve integrity entirety.5 24 5. subpoena power supports interpretation. 161, gives 'the hearings investigations.' Once subpoenaed protected action regardless actually testified. Judge Lumbard pertinently it: 25 'It is, permissible inference intended (subpoena) power.' Pedersen 234 417, 420 (CA2 1956). Under reasoning, if subpoenaed, protected. basis denying voluntary participant. 27 6. approach generally liberal fully section's remedial purpose. M Steel 353 80 (CA5 sustained finding, 789, 792—795 (1964), employee, Williams, Dal-Tex Optical 310 58, 60—61 1962), 131 715, 721 (1961), affording Whitaker, See Syracuse Stamping 208 77, 79—80 1953).6 28 aware substantial countervailing considerations. therefore conclude Having reached conclusion, unnecessary us determine expressly refrain doing. IV final comment jurisdictional aspects perhaps order. found operations too satisfy self-imposed published $50,000 outflow-inflow standard non-retail enterprises. Siemons Mailing Service, 122 81, 85 (1958). found, sufficient 'have affect interstate commerce,' thus within jurisdiction, defined 10(a) 160(a). prompted (4) claim retaliation, refuse claims latter 'no immediate vindication resort processes Scrivener, consequence, complains relief claimed unavailable. 32 unfairness understandable. See, 417. As sufficiency evidence, others, nto when decided did. note act 'marginal.' 1296. event, canvassed remand. 33 judgment remanded further proceedings. 34 ordered. Reversed Local 453, International Brotherhood Electrical AFL—CIO. Apparently prepare testify.' 101. Justices concurred result joined Part plurality opinion. 769, 1431. regard cases, Albert J. Bartson, 666, 673—674 (1940); F.W. Poe 1257, 1270 Kramer 921, 935 (1941), cited amicus, indicative contrary each cases charge. reference, opinion, last 'express afforded employees' 8(a)(4), expected natural references not, indicate statute. persuaded 8(a)(3), 158(a)(3), criminal penalty provided 162, provide required justifies reading cf. Hoover Design Corp. 402 987 (CA6 1968) (employee 'threatened go Board' charges).

Category: 6