National Labor Relations Board v. Exchange Parts Company, 26
| Citation | 11 L.Ed.2d 435,84 S.Ct. 457,375 U.S. 405 |
| Decision Date | 13 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 26,26 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. EXCHANGE PARTS COMPANY |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Dominick L. Manoli, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Karl H. Mueller, Fort Worth, Tex., for respondent.
This case presents a question concerning the limitations which § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 452 (1935), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), places on the right of an employer to confer economic benefits on his employees shortly before a representation election. The precise issue is whether that section prohibits the conferral of such benefits, without more, where the employer's purpose is to affect the outcome of the election. We granted the National Labor Relations Board's petition for certiorari, 373 U.S. 931, 83 S.Ct. 1533, 10 L.Ed.2d 689, to clear up a possible conflict between the decision below and those of other Courts of Appeals1 on an important question of national labor policy. For reasons given in this opinion, we conclude that the judgment below must be reversed.
The respondent, Exchange Parts Company, is engaged in the business of rebuilding automobile parts in Fort Worth, Texas. Prior to November 1959 its employees were not represented by a union. On November 9, 1959, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL—CIO, advised Exchange Parts that the union was conducting an organizational campaign at the plant and that a majority of the employees had designated the union as their bargaining representative. On November 16 the union petitioned the Labor Board for a representation election. The Board conducted a hearing on December 29, and on February 19, 1960, issued an order directing that an election be held. The election was held on March 18, 1960.
At two meetings on November 4 and 5, 1959, C. V. McDonald, the Vice-President and General Manager of Exchange Parts, announced to the employees that their 'floating holiday' in 1959 would fall on December 26 and that there would be an additional 'floating holiday' in 1960. On February 25, six days after the Board issued its election order, Exchange Parts held a dinner for employees at which Vice-President McDonald told the em- ployees that they could decide whether the extra day of vacation in 1960 would be a 'floating holiday' or would be taken on their birthdays. The employees voted for the latter. McDonald also referred to the forthcoming representation election as one in which, in the words of the trial examiner, the employees would 'determine whether * * * (they) wished to hand over their right to speak and act for themselves.' He stated that the union had distorted some of the facts and pointed out the benefits obtained by the employees without a union. He urged all the employees to vote in the election.
On March 4 Exchange Parts sent its employees a letter which spoke of 'the Empty Promises of the Union' and 'the fact that it is the Compan that puts things in your envelope * * *.' After mentioning a number of benefits, the letter said: 'The Union can't put any of those things in your envelope—only the Company can do that.'2 Further on, the letter stated: '* * * (I)t didn't take a Union to get any of those things and * * * it won't take a Union to get additional improvements in the future.' Accompanying the letter was a detailed statement of the benefits granted by the company since 1949 and an estimate of the menetary value of such benefits to the employees. Included in the statement of benefits for 1960 were the birthday holiday, a new system for computing overtime during holiday weeks which had the effect of increasing wages for those weeks, and a new vacation schedule which enabled employees to extend their vacations by sandwiching them between two weekends. Although Exchange Parts asserts that the policy behind the latter two benefits was established earlier, it is clear that the letter of March 4 was the first general announcement of the changes to the employees. In the ensuing election the union lost.
The Board, affirming the findings of the trial examiner, found that the announcement of the birthday holiday and the grant and announcement of overtime and vacation benefits were arranged by Exchange Parts with the intention of inducing the employees to vote against the union. It found that this conduct violated § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act and issued an appropriate order. On the Board's petition for enforcement of the order, the Court of Appeals rejected the finding that the announcement of the birthday holiday was timed to influence the outcome of the election. It accepted the Board's findings with respect to the overtime and vacation benefits, and the propriety of those findings is not in controversy here. However, noting that 'the benefits were put into effect unconditionally on a permanent basis, and no one has suggested that there was any implication the benefits would be withdrawn if the workers voted for the union,' 304 F.2d 368, 375, the court denied enforcement of the Board's order. It believed that it was not an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(1) for an employer to grant benefits to its employees in these circumstances.
Section 8(a)(1) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer 'to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.' Section 7 provides:
'Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harry Carian Sales v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
... ... AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent; ... UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, ... orders are frequently issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), this is the first ... 25, 26; see also [39 Cal.3d 225] Comment, California's ... Henry Colder Company" (7th Cir.1971) 447 F.2d 629, 630.) ... \xC2" ... (N.L.R.B. v. Exchange Parts Co. (1964) 375 U.S. 405, 409, 84 S.Ct. 457, ... ...
-
San Clemente Ranch, Ltd. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect." (Labor Board v. Exchange Parts (1964) 375 U.S. 405, 409, 84 S.Ct. 457, 460, 11 L.Ed.2d 435.) Such conduct violates 28 U.S.C., section 158, subdivision (a)(1), and the Board found that it also vi......
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire and Rubber Company
...547 (1969); see Textile Workers v. Darlington Co., 380 U.S. 263, 85 S.Ct. 994, 13 L.Ed.2d 827 (1965); NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 84 S.Ct. 457, 11 L.Ed.2d 435 (1964). Similar considerations apply to statements made or inducements offered by labor unions. See, e. g., NLRB v. Sa......
-
Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Ass'n
...Chicago Rawhide, 221 F.2d at 167; NLRB v. Wemyss, 212 F.2d 465, 471 (9th Cir.1954); see also NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405, 409, 84 S.Ct. 457, 459-60, 11 L.Ed.2d 435 (1964) (employer's motive in providing benefits relevant to finding domination); Lawson Co. v. NLRB, 753 F.2d 471,......
-
A Reexamination of the Role of Employer Motive Under Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act
...the Civil Rights Act of 1964). 68. There is, for example, "purpose" language in the Supreme Court's opinion in NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405 (1964) (grant of benefits coercive in violation of 8(a)(1)) that may suggest merely that the conduct in issue did not serve the employer's ......
-
Achieving the Achievable: Realistic Labor Law Reform.
...though the benefits were made irrevocable and could not be withdrawn if employees voted for union representation. NLRB v. Exch. Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405 (1964). Unions enjoy more leeway in making promises. See Acme Wire Prods. Corp., 224 NLRB 701 (1976) (noting that employees understand that......
-
Stacking the Deck: Privileging Employer Free Choice Over Industrial Democracy in the Card-check Debate
...Corp., Metaldyne Corp., and the Board's Attack on Voluntary Recognition Agreements, 21 LAB. LAW. 37 (2005). 10. 395 U.S. 575 (1969). 11. 375 U.S. 405 (1964). 12. Dana II, 2007 WL 2891099 at *1 (quoting MV Transp., 337 N.L.R.B. 770 (2002)). 13. 350 N.L.R.B. No. 55 (2007), 2007 WL 2322536. 14......
-
Card check recognition: new house rules for union organizing?
...that the clients would reduce or eliminate their business if the union won the organizing election). (29.) See NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405,409 (1964) (comparing benefits granted during an organizing campaign to a "fist inside the velvet glove," the Court held that the granting ......