National Labor Relations Board v. Seamprufe, Inc.

• Decision Date: 04 May 1955
• Docket Number: No. 4996.,4996.
• Citation: 222 F.2d 858
• Parties: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SEAMPRUFE, Inc. (Holdenville Plant), Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

222 F.2d 858 (1955)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. SEAMPRUFE, Inc. (Holdenville Plant), Respondent.

No. 4996.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

May 4, 1955.

Ruth V. Reel, Washington, D. C. (David P. Findling, Assoc. General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, and Fannie M. Boyls, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Karl H. Mueller, Fort Worth, Tex. (Howard Lichtenstein, New York City, and Harold E. Mueller, Fort Worth, Tex., on the brief), for respondent.

Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

MURRAH, Circuit Judge.

This is a petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board directing Seamprufe, Inc. to cease and desist from prohibiting the use of its private parking lot and adjacent area by non-employee union organizers for distribution of union literature and solicitation of Seamprufe's employees to union membership during the employees' non-working hours, on the ground that such prohibition constituted an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 151 et seq., 158(a) (1).

Seamprufe operates a manufacturing plant located on the outskirts of Holdenville, Oklahoma, a town of approximately 6000 residents. It employs approximately 200 persons on a one-shift basis. Two-thirds of the employees live in Holdenville, and one-third within a radius of from five to thirty miles from the city. None of the employees are represented by a union for collective bargaining purposes.

Late in 1952, representatives of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, AFL, began contacting Seamprufe's employees before and after working hours, on the private parking area provided by Seamprufe for the use of its employees and upon the private sidewalk leading to the rear entrance of the plant. There they greeted the employees and sometimes distributed union literature. After the inception of these visits, Seamprufe posted "No Trespassing" and "Private Road" signs on its premises, and consistently warned the union representatives that they were trespassing on company property and that they must leave the premises. After the Holdenville City Council enacted an ordinance forbidding anyone from going upon private property without the owner's consent under penalty of fine, the union organizers were removed by the city police and arrested for trespassing.

The employees ride to and from work in privately owned automobiles, either singly or in groups. They approach the plant from the east along the public road on the south side of the plant premises. They enter company property driving north on a one-way company-owned road, and park their cars on the company parking facilities at the rear of the plant. After parking their cars the employees walk to the rear entrance of the plant on the private sidewalk connecting with the private road.

On leaving the plant after work, the employees proceed by direction from the parking area driving northeasterly on the private road to the public road intersection along the east side of the plant, turn south onto that road and continue thereon to the intersection with the public road bounding the plant premises on the south, where they turn left toward Holdenville. There are no stop signs at either intersection, and the Board affirmed the trial examiner's findings that the employees normally do not stop at any point in the vicinity of the plant except in the parking area because the plant is located in a semirural area and the traffic is light. There was testimony to the effect that at the close of work on a typical day in January, 1954, 80 cars containing 225 employees left the parking lot at about a car length apart and at speeds varying from five to twenty-five miles per hour; that approximately ten minutes after cars first began to leave the lot, the entire caravan had departed from the plant area.

Following the rationale of N. L. R. B. v. Le Tourneau Co., 324 U.S. 793, 65 S. Ct. 982, 89 L.Ed. 1372, and succeeding cases, N. L. R. B. v. Caldwell Furniture Co., 4 Cir., 199 F.2d 267, certiorari denied, 345 U.S. 907, 73 S.Ct. 647, 97 L.Ed. 1343; N. L. R. B. v. American Furnace Co., 7 Cir., 158 F.2d 376; N. L. R. B. v. Illinois Tool Works, 7 Cir., 153 F.2d 811, the Board found that the enforcement of Seamprufe's no-trespass rule was unnecessary to the maintenance of plant production and discipline; and further that the nonstop method of driving to and from the plant area made it virtually impossible for union representatives to...