LeTourneau Co. of Georgia v. NATIONAL LAB. REL. BOARD, 10954.

• Decision Date: 23 June 1944
• Docket Number: No. 10954.,10954.
• Citation: 143 F.2d 67
• Parties: LeTOURNEAU CO. OF GEORGIA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

143 F.2d 67 (1944)

LeTOURNEAU CO. OF GEORGIA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

No. 10954.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 23, 1944.

A. C. Wheeler, of Gainesville, Ga., and Clifton W. Brannon and C. M. McClure, both of Toccoa, Ga., for petitioner.

Alvin J. Rockwell, General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Howard Lichtenstein, Asst. General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, both of Washington, D. C., and Harold A. Cranefield, Regional Atty., National Labor Relations Board, of Detroit, Mich., for respondent.

Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

The petitioner seeks to set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board which required the petitioner to cease and desist from discouraging membership of its employees in United States Steel Workers of America, or discriminating in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or in any manner interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in their right to self-organization; and to rescind a rule of petitioner against distributing literature in so far as it prohibits distribution of union literature by employees outside the gates of the plant and in the parking lots; and to make whole employees Ferguson and Ayers for two days suspension for violation of the rule; and to post appropriate notices.

There is no question of fact, and only one question of law, to-wit: Whether the impartial enforcement of the rule, made long before union activities began, is, as to union literature, a violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. The complaint asserted the suspension of the two employees was discriminatory and because of union activity, but the Board found otherwise on that point.

The main facts are that petitioner is a large manufacturer of earth-moving machinery, employing 2100 employees who come to their work in automobiles and busses to a main entrance gate of the enclosed plant near the highway. Between the enclosure and the highway the petitioner graded and surfaced a parking lot and a smaller similar lot just across the highway, both lots being on its lands. In 1941 thefts of articles from the parked cars began, thought to be due to a practice of placing advertising matter in them. The lots were also littered up thereby. Petitioner thereupon put the parking lots under military guards, who also kept them clean, and were available to protect the plant, which was engaged in work important to the war effort, in case of emergency. On July 3, 1941, the captain of the guard, presumably with petitioner's authority, and consistently with the general policy of petitioner manifested by notices posted in the plant, and in a book of rules given employees, issued a rule that "No merchant, concern, company, or individual will be permitted to distribute, post, or otherwise circulate handbills, posters, or any literature of any description on company property without securing permission from the personnel department." The Board finds that "Since July 3, 1941, the plant protection force has strictly enforced the no-distributing-no-posting rule on the respondent's premises, including the two parking lots."

In February, 1943, the Congress of Industrial Organizations attempted to organize the employees. Petitioner posted an appropriate notice that the joining or not joining of the union was the employee's right, with which petitioner would not interfere or permit...