F. W. Woolworth Company, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross

Fifth Circuit

F. W. Woolworth Company, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross

530 F.2d 1245

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 2, 1976

Docket75--1878

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 530 F.2d 1245 (F. W. Woolworth Company, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

F. W. Woolworth Company, Petitioner-Cross v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross, 530 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Board found that the employer violated § 8(a)(1) by seizing union literature that had been distributed by the union to employees in its central accounting office and by mailing to the union some of the seized material consisting of unsigned authorization cards.in prepaid envelopes that had been attached thereto.

The literature was placed on unattended desks and working stations prior to the beginning of working hours. No literature was taken away from any employee, and the employer did not interfere with the distribution. The employer had no posted rule against distribution of literature in working areas.

This case is not controlled, as the employer claims, by Patio Foods v. N.L.R.B., 415 F.2d 1001 (CA5 1969). There we held that, absent a rule against distribution of literature in working areas, the employer’s interest in cleanliness and order in a working area justified a prohibition on handbilling. The record in the present case adequately supports the Board’s finding that the employer’s objective was not the protection of its property interests as in Patio Foods but rather to discourage union activity. In view of that finding the Order of the Board is ENFORCED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The Board found that the employer violated § 8(a)(1) by seizing union literature that had been distributed by the union to employees in its central accounting office and by mailing to the union some of the seized material consisting of unsigned authorization cards.in prepaid envelopes that had been attached thereto.

The literature was placed on unattended desks and working stations prior to the beginning of working hours. No literature was taken away from any employee, and the employer did not interfere with the distribution. The employer had no posted rule against distribution of literature in working areas.

This case is not controlled, as the employer claims, by Patio Foods v. N.L.R.B., 415 F.2d 1001 (CA5 1969). There we held that, absent a rule against distribution of literature in working areas, the employer’s interest in cleanliness and order in a working area justified a prohibition on handbilling. The record in the present case adequately supports the Board’s finding that the employer’s objective was not the protection of its property interests as in Patio Foods but rather to discourage union activity. In view of that finding the Order of the Board is ENFORCED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 F.2d 1245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/f-w-woolworth-company-petitioner-cross-v-national-labor-relations-ca5-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack