This is а petition for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board which found, upon undisputed evidence, that during the weеk preceding an election directed by the Board, respondent company called each of its employees to its officе, and after impressing upon each of them its opposition to the union, proceeded to advise them of its intention to grant certain еconomic benefits to them. The Board concluded that the promising of such benefits in this manner and under the attendant circumstances interfered with, restrained, and coerced the employees in the exercise of the rights of self-organization and collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing, guaranteed them under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 157. It, accordingly, ordered resрondent to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of such rights. While declaring thаt expressions of views voiced by the company to certain of its employees and statements contained in circulars and noticеs distributed to them by the company before the election clearly indicated respondent’s hostility to the union and its leaders and the company’s preference for individual bargaining, the Board held that this was an expression of opinion protected by the Constitutional guarantee of free speech. The Board based its findings of an unfair practice upon the promises of economic benefits made by the cоmpany to the employees immediately preceding the election.
The economic benefits promised by the respondent cоnsisted, among other matters, of more frequent payments of commissions —from semiannual to quarterly payments. Theretofore the employees had been paid ■a weekly draw which was deducted from their earned commissions. But when an employee’s commissions were less than his totаl draw for the six months’ period, the difference between his total draw and his earned commissions was canceled. In other words, respondent’s rulеs required neither the return of the overdraw from the employees nor its deduction from future earnings. The foregoing change of more frequent рayment of commissions obviously constituted an advantage to the employees because the increase in frequency of paymеnt of commissions increased the number of occasions in which a deficit in commissions with respect to the draw might be canceled. In addition, a more advantageous drawing account was promised to the employees, as well as a more generous vacation plan, аnd improvement of existing locker and rest room facilities.
The Board was justified in concluding that through the promises of the economic benеfits above mentioned, the respondent was demonstrating to its employees that resort to self-organization was plainly unnecessary. This constituted interference with the exercise by the employees of their right of self-organization and collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing. “Interference is no less interference-because it is accomplished through allurements rather than coercion.” National Labor Relations Board v. Crown Can Co., 8 Cir.,
As to respondent’s contention that the statements to its emрloyees with respect to the union, including its promises to them of economic benefits, were protected as an exercise of its right оf free speech, it may be said that the language of Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Labor Management Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141' et seq., 61 Stat. 136,
1
is no more than the restatement of the principle embodied in the First Amendment. The promise of economic bеnefits, however, constituted such interference as to fall outside the protection of the Act. Section 8(c), as amended, provides thаt expressions which contain a promise of benefit are not protected. In National Labor Relations Board v. La Salle Steel Co., 7 Cir.,
The Board’s order requiring respondent to cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in their right of self-organization and collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing, was not too broad. See National Labor Relations Board v. Sunbeam Electric Mfg. Co., 7 Cir.,
A judgment will be entered enforcing the order as modified.
Notes
. “The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evideuce of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this Act, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.”