## Facts

- A union began an organizing campaign at Exchange Parts Company’s Fort Worth, Texas facility in November 1959 and sought a representation election.
- The NLRB ordered an election on February 19, 1960, and the election was held on March 18, 1960.
- During the organizing campaign and in close proximity to the election, management announced and implemented new or improved employee benefits, including an additional paid day off characterized as a “floating holiday” for 1960.
- After the election was ordered, the company held a dinner meeting where management allowed employees to choose how to take the added 1960 day off (employees selected a birthday holiday).
- At the same meeting, management made comments about employees deciding whether to “hand over their right to speak and act for themselves.”
- The NLRB found the timing and circumstances showed the benefits were conferred to influence the upcoming election, constituting interference with employee organizational rights under NLRA § 8(a)(1).
- The Fifth Circuit denied enforcement of the NLRB’s order, reasoning that conferring benefits, without more, was not an unfair labor practice.

## Issues

1. Whether NLRA § 8(a)(1) prohibits an employer from granting economic benefits shortly before a representation election, without explicit threats or conditions, when the purpose is to influence employees’ vote on union representation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held the employer’s conduct violated NLRA § 8(a)(1).
- The Court ruled that § 8(a)(1) reaches not only threats and promises, but also favorable conduct undertaken to affect employees’ freedom of choice regarding unionization.
- The Court accepted the NLRB’s inference from timing and context that the benefits were intended to affect the election outcome.
- The Court concluded that such benefits can function as implicit pressure because employees may reasonably perceive the employer’s ability to dispense or withhold future advantages depending on their choice about representation.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 8(a)(1) prohibits employer conduct that interferes with employee organizational rights, including conduct “immediately favorable” to employees when intended to influence their choice on representation and reasonably calculated to do so.
- Pre-election grants of new or improved benefits may be unlawful interference even if not expressly conditioned on voting behavior and even if not accompanied by explicit threats.
- The absence of explicit conditions is not dispositive where the surrounding circumstances support a finding that the employer acted to affect the election and thereby constrained free choice.

## Conclusion

An employer commits an unfair labor practice under NLRA § 8(a)(1) by conferring benefits shortly before a representation election when the purpose and likely effect are to influence employees to vote against union representation, even if the benefits are not expressly conditioned on employees’ votes.


NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405 (1964)