Document: 379 U.S. 21 85 S.Ct. 171 13 L.Ed.2d 1 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.BURNUP AND SIMS, INC. No. 15. Argued Oct. 15, 1964. Decided Nov. 9, Arnold Ordman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Erle Phillips, Atlanta, Ga., respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. Two employees in respondent's plant, Davis and Harmon, undertook to organize who worked there. The Superintendent was advised by another employee, one Pate, that while soliciting him membership union, had told union would use dynamite get if did not acquire authorizations. Respondent thereafter discharged Harmon because these alleged statements. An unfair labor practice proceeding brought. Board held discharges violated §§ 8(a)(1) 8(a)(3) Act,1 61 Stat. 136, 140—141, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(1) (a)(3). It found Pate's charges against were untrue they actually made no threats company's property; it concluded honest belief truth statement a defense. 137 N.L.R.B. 766, 772 773. 2 Court Appeals refused reinstatement holding since employer acted good faith, unlawful. 322 F.2d 57. We granted petition certiorari conflict among Circuits. Cf. with below National Labor Relations v. Industrial Cotton Mills, 4 Cir., 208 87, 45 A.L.R.2d 880; Cambria Clay Products Co., 6 215 48; Cusano Board, 3 190 898. find unnecessary reach questions raised under § we are view context this record plainly violated, whatever employer's motive.2 Section 7 grants employees, inter alia, 'the right self-organization, form, join, or assist organizations.' Defeat those rights action does necessarily depend on existence an anti-union bias. Over again ruled is employee misconduct arising out protected activity, despite when shown never occurred. See, e.g., Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 54 912, 932—934; Standard Oil 91 783, 790—791; Rubin Bros. Footwear, Inc., 99 610, 611.3 In sum, at time engaged knew such, basis discharge act course not, fact, guilty misconduct. That rule seems us be conformity policy behind 8(a)(1). Otherwise activity lose some its immunity, example false might have deterrent effect other employees. Union often engenders strong emotions gives rise active rumors. A acquires precarious status innocent can engaging it, even though acts faith. tendency weaken destroy controlling. realm managerial prerogatives. Rather concerned manner over which has been entrusted powers surveillance. See International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL—CIO 366 731, 738—739, 81 1603, 1607—1608, 762; Erie Resistor 373 221, 228—229, 83 1139, 1145—1146, 10 308. dynamiting wholly disassociated from activities quite different considerations apply. 5 Reversed. HARLAN, concurring part dissenting part. Both adopted lower court now announced seem me unacceptable. On hand, impinges assured hold, as did, must bear entire brunt his honest, but mistaken, discharge. hardly fair should faced choice risking damage business incurring penalty taking thwart it. 8 Between two one-way streets lies middle two-way course: require mistakenly back pay only learned, mistake, subject, however, valid reason refusing reinstatement.1 Such offense neither any statute nor dictates fairness employer, my represents reasonable accommodation between inflexible points evinced opinions here. 9 Since I do believe case presents rare situation ignore motive,2 vacate judgment remand further appropriate proceedings light what proper rule. Sections (3) read follows: 'It shall employer— '(1) interfere with, restrain, coerce exercise guaranteed section 7; '(3) discrimination regard hire tenure employment term condition encourage discourage organization * *.' As alternative ground finding Act allegation merely 'seized up(on)' respondent 'excuse' Harmon. 772—773. Appeals, rejected without discussion suggestion 57, 59, 61. writ expressly stated 'The propriety (by Appeals) questioned here.' concession determine whether Board's discriminatory motivation supported substantial evidence. qualification burden proof. Prior thereto prove fact said 'once such established, General Counsel go forward evidence engage misconduct.' N.L.R.B., 611. example, replacement hired unduly delayed apprising mistake. Local 357, Intern. Broth. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen Helpers America 365 667, 677, 835, 840—841, 11 (1961) (concurring opinion). here significant justification—to avoid silo—for discharging unlike situations presented Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. 162 435; 898, 87. supra 680, 842. downgraded plant inspectors after voted join apparent inspectors' union. There justification except feeling members supervisory therefore justified treating specific motive. involved mistaken misstatement about company profits, well campaign 'oratory' misstatement. could simply denied profit figures, there employee. Mills closest analogy before us. following strike misconduct—throwing tacks street during strike—which he commit. recognized special congressional concern embodied 2(3) Act, lack antiunion motive irrelevant. also little punishing ended, fear future sabotage

Category: 6