National Labor Rel. Board v. Seamprufe, Inc.

7 Citing cases

  1. Labor Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co.

    351 U.S. 105 (1956)   Cited 294 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Board could not require an employer to allow non-employee union representatives to enter the employer's parking lot

    222 F.2d 316, affirmed. 222 F.2d 858, affirmed. 222 F.2d 543, reversed.

  2. May Department Stores Company v. N.L.R.B

    316 F.2d 797 (6th Cir. 1963)   Cited 7 times

    It was similarly the Board's view in Babcock and Wilcox that "the place of work was so much more effective a place for communication of information that it held the employer guilty of an unfair labor practice for refusing limited access to company property to union organizers." The Supreme Court, along with the Babcock and Wilcox case, affirmed the decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in National Labor Relations Board v. Seamprufe, Inc., 222 F.2d 858. The Court of Appeals in the latter case held that "absent a showing of non-accessibility amounting to a handicap to self-organization," non-employee solicitors have no right of access to company premises, inasmuch as they are "strangers to * * * the employees' guaranteed right of self-organization." P. 861 of 222 F.2d. There are no findings of non-accessibility by the Board in this case.

  3. N.L.R.B. v. Armstrong Tire Rubber

    262 F.2d 812 (5th Cir. 1959)

    The order condemned generally actions on respondent's part discouraging membership in labor organizations. The law governing proceedings such as this one has been fully declared in recent decisions, e.g., Olin Industries, supra; Republic Aviation Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 1945, 324 U.S. 793, 65 S.Ct. 982, 89 L.Ed. 557, and N.L.R.B. v. Babcock Wilcox Company, 1956, 351 U.S. 105, 76 S.Ct. 679, 100 L.Ed. 975, affirming the decision of this Court in the same case, 5 Cir., 222 F.2d 316, and the decision of the Court of the Tenth Circuit in N.L.R.B. v. Seamprufe, Inc., 10 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 858, and reversing the enforcement order granted by the Second Circuit in N.L.R.B. v. Local No. 1261, etc., 1955, 222 F.2d 542. The enforcement order is based upon its findings of fact approving largely the report of the Trial Examiner and not upon any crucial point of law.

  4. United Steelworkers v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.

    243 F.2d 593 (D.C. Cir. 1956)   Cited 6 times

    National Labor Relations Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 113, 76 S.Ct. 679, 100 L.Ed. 975 (1956). See also National Labor Relations Board v. Seamprufe, Inc., 222 F.2d 858 (10 Cir. 1955), affirmed 351 U.S. 105, 76 S. Ct. 679, 100 L.Ed. 975 (1956); Maryland Drydock Co. v. National Labor Rel. Bd., 183 F.2d 538 (4 Cir., 1950); National Labor Relations Bd. v.

  5. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Monsanto Chemical

    225 F.2d 16 (9th Cir. 1955)   Cited 1 times

    Decided with Republic Aviation Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board. In National Labor Relations Board v. Seamprufe, Inc., 10 Cir., 222 F.2d 858, the facts were substantially the same in that the complaint charged the respondent with prohibiting the use of its private parking area and adjacent areas by a non-employee union organizer for distribution of union literature and solicitation of employees to union membership during the employees non-working hours. There also it appears that the manufacturing plant was located near a small town; it employed approximately 200 persons, two-thirds of whom lived in town and the balance within a radius of five to thirty miles from the city.

  6. The People v. Goduto

    21 Ill. 2d 605 (Ill. 1961)   Cited 31 times
    Recognizing that trespass can lead to violence and criminal sanctions are appropriate to protect the public

    This has been the procedure generally followed by the unions. See e.g., National Labor Relations Board v. Babcock Wilcox Co. (5th cir.) 222 F.2d 316; National Labor Relations Board v. Seamprufe, Inc. (10th cir.) 222 F.2d 858; National Labor Relations Board v. Ranco, Inc. (6th cir.) 222 F.2d 543; National Labor Relations Board v. Cranston Print Works Co. (4th cir.) 258 F.2d 206; National Labor Relations Board v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. (5th cir.) 277 F.2d 759.

  7. Lawson Milk Co. v. Union

    394 N.E.2d 312 (Ohio Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 4 times

    When the employee is the union organizer, the employer may be required to furnish a forum for communication. The non-employee who solicits union membership on company property is more likely to be deemed a trespasser. See National Labor Relations Board v. SeamPrufe, Inc. (C. A. 10, 1955), 222 F.2d 858. The United States Supreme Court recognizes the right of an employer to post his property against soliciting as long as the policy is equally applied.