TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

166 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations board
of this case, as the employer's action was prompted by a desire to
assure compliance with its contractual commitment to the construction
contractor."
In another case,18 the same court disagreed with the Board's findmg
that the employers violated section 8(a) (3) by unilatei ally canceling,
without notice to their employees' statutory representative, their
previously announced plan to raise Negro employees' vacation benefits
to the level of those enjoyed by white employees The Board had
found that the Negro employees had reasonable cause to believe, as a
result of the employer's unilateral action, that their vacation rights
were denied not for racial reasons but because the union had been
certified as the employees' representative According to the court,
the Board could not infer that the discrimination against the Negio
employees was designed to encoui age or discourage union membership
since there was no showing that the employer had any knowledge as
to the status of the Negro or white employees with regard to union
membership 1°
In a case which came before the Nmth Circuit, 2° an employer gave
Christmas bonuses to all of its employees except those in a singleplant
unit whose collective-bargaining representative had struck
during the preceding year Rejecting the Boaid's finding that the
employer thereby violated the statute, the court said that except in
cases where the employer's discrimination is based solely on union
activity, a showing of intent to encourage or discom age union membership
is essential to a finding that such discrimination violates
section 8(a) (1) or (3) The case before it did not fall within the
exception to this rule, the court said, because the employer had denied
the bonus on the asis of the plant's low productivity and poor continuity
of work effort, even though such poor showing was due to the
employees' pm ticipation in a protected economic strike The
employer had also taken into consideration poor business piospects
attributable in part to the fact that the union contract was to be
reopened for negotiations the following year Nor, according to the
court, did the record show that the denial of the bonus was designed
to penalize the employees for striking
11 The court also held that the subcontracting of the work here involved did not violate
sec 8(a) (1) or (5)
u NLRB v Intracoastal Terminal, /no, 286 F 2d 954
"The court found, however, that this unilateral change in policy violated sec 8(a) (1)
because it was not within the area of negotiations during the bargaining sessions
Psttaburgh-Des Moines Steel CO vATLEB, 284 F 2d 74