NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Labor Law

375 U.S. 405 (1964)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawpre-election benefitsNLRASection 8(a)(1)Section 7representation electionemployer interferenceunion organizing

Facts

After a union began an organizational campaign and petitioned for a representation election, Exchange Parts announced or publicized several employee benefits, including an extra holiday, increased overtime treatment during holiday weeks, and a new vacation schedule. The Board found that the birthday holiday announcement and the grant and announcement of overtime and vacation benefits were timed and arranged to induce employees to vote against the union. The company also circulated a letter emphasizing that only the company, not the union, could provide such benefits. The union lost the election.

Issue

Does NLRA § 8(a)(1) prohibit an employer from conferring economic benefits on employees during a pending representation election, without any explicit threat or condition, when the employer's purpose is to influence employees to vote against the union?

Rule

Section 8(a)(1) prohibits not only threats and promises but also conduct favorable to employees that is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging on their freedom of choice regarding unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect. Thus, conferring benefits during a pending representation election to induce employees to vote against the union unlawfully interferes with employees' § 7 rights, even if the benefits are permanent, unconditional, and not expressly tied to rejecting the union.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

North River Components, a parts remanufacturing company in Toledo, learns that a representation election will occur in three weeks. Internal emails show management accelerated a long-discussed paid personal day so employees would see they did not need union representation, and the day was granted permanently to all workers with no strings attached.

If the Board proves those emails, which is the strongest assessment under NLRA § 8(a)(1)?

Explanation. Section 8(a)(1) reaches not only threats and promises but also favorable conduct undertaken with the purpose of impinging on employees’ freedom of choice and reasonably calculated to have that effect. A well-timed permanent, unconditional benefit may still unlawfully interfere when granted to induce employees to reject unionization. An express threat or condition is not required.