Lexplug logoLexplug

NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co.

Supreme Court of the United States
11 L. Ed. 2d 435, 84 S. Ct. 457 (1964)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employer's conferral of economic benefits upon employees shortly before a representation election violates § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act if the employer's purpose is to interfere with the employees' freedom of choice in the election.


Facts:

  • Prior to November 1959, employees at Exchange Parts Company were not represented by a union.
  • On November 9, 1959, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers union informed Exchange Parts it was conducting an organizational campaign.
  • On February 25, 1960, six days after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordered a representation election, the company's Vice-President, C. V. McDonald, announced a new birthday holiday benefit at an employee dinner.
  • On March 4, 1960, two weeks before the election, Exchange Parts sent a letter to employees announcing a new, more favorable system for computing overtime during holiday weeks and a new vacation schedule.
  • The letter also included statements such as 'it is the Company that puts things in your envelope' and 'it won’t take a Union to get additional improvements in the future.'
  • On March 18, 1960, the union lost the representation election.

Procedural Posture:

  • The union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
  • An NLRB trial examiner found that Exchange Parts' conduct violated § 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.
  • The full NLRB affirmed the trial examiner's findings and issued an order against Exchange Parts.
  • The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court, for enforcement of its order.
  • The Court of Appeals denied enforcement, holding that granting unconditional, permanent benefits before an election was not an unfair labor practice.
  • The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court, for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an employer's conferral of economic benefits upon its employees shortly before a representation election, with the purpose of influencing the outcome of that election, constitute an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan

Yes. An employer's conferral of economic benefits while a representation election is pending, for the purpose of inducing employees to vote against the union, interferes with the protected right to organize under § 8(a)(1). The court reasoned that § 8(a)(1)'s purpose is to protect the right of employees to organize without employer interference, which includes not only threats but also conduct immediately favorable to employees if it is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice. The danger of well-timed benefits is the implicit message that 'the source of benefits now conferred is also the source from which future benefits must flow and which may dry up if it is not obliged.' This constitutes a 'fist inside the velvet glove.' The fact that the benefits are granted unconditionally and permanently does not negate the violation, as the underlying coercive message about the source of future benefits remains, thereby interfering with employee choice.



Analysis:

This decision establishes that an employer's motive is a critical element in determining whether a pre-election grant of benefits constitutes an unfair labor practice. The Court clarified that conduct does not have to be overtly threatening or coercive to violate the NLRA; even seemingly positive actions can be unlawful if their purpose is to undermine employees' free choice in a union election. The 'fist inside the velvet glove' analogy became a cornerstone of labor law, signifying that benefits conferred with the intent to dissuade unionization are implicitly coercive. This ruling prevents employers from using 'strategic benevolence' to defeat union organizing drives, thereby protecting the integrity of the election process.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co. (1964) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co.