Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-01422/USCOURTS-caDC-00-01422-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mid-Mountain Foods, Inc.
Petitioner
National Labor Relations Board
Respondent

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 9, 2001 Decided November 6, 2001

No. 00-1422

Mid-Mountain Foods, Inc.,

Petitioner

v.

National Labor Relations Board,

Respondent

On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for

Enforcement of an Order of the

National Labor Relations Board

Ronald I. Tisch argued the cause for petitioner. With him

on the briefs were Peter A. Susser and Mark M. Lawson.

Anna L. Francis, Attorney, National Labor Relations

Board, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the

brief were Arthur F. Rosenfeld, General Counsel, John H.

Ferguson, Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong,

USCA Case #00-1422 Document #636518 Filed: 11/06/2001 Page 1 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Deputy Associate General Counsel, and Fred L. Cornnell, Jr.,

Supervisory Attorney.

Before: Sentelle, Randolph, and Garland, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.

Per Curiam: Mid-Mountain Foods, Inc., a Virginia wholesale grocer, petitions for review of an order of the National

Labor Relations Board. The Board cross-petitions for enforcement.

On August 1, 1996, the Board supervised an election to

determine whether Mid-Mountain's warehouse employees desired to be represented by the United Food and Commercial

Workers International Union, Local 400. The union lost.

After reviewing the actions and statements of MidMountain's management, the Board found that the company

had committed several unfair labor practices. The Board

therefore ordered another election and ordered the company

to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices.

Mid-Mountain asks us to set aside the portion of the

Board's order requiring a new election. We cannot consider

this issue now. We have repeatedly held that the Board's

decision to hold another election is not a "final order."

Therefore, judicial review is not yet available under the

National Labor Relations Act. See Adtranz ABB DaimlerBenz Transp. v. NLRB, 253 F.3d 19, 24-25 (D.C. Cir. 2001);

Gold Coast Rest. v. NLRB, 995 F.2d 257, 267 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

(citing American Fed'n of Labor v. NLRB, 308 U.S. 401, 409

(1940)); see also Hartz Mountain Corp. v. Dotson, 727 F.2d

1308, 1310-12 (D.C. Cir. 1984); International Union of Elec.,

Radio & Mach. Workers, Local 806 v. NLRB, 434 F.2d 473,

482 (D.C. Cir. 1970).

Mid-Mountain also claims that the Board's findings of

unfair labor practices were unsupported. The company raises numerous evidentiary objections. There is no need to go

into these in detail. Substantial evidence sustains the

Board's decision that Mid-Mountain Foods committed unfair

labor practices when its supervisors interrogated employees

about their views on unionization, when company representaUSCA Case #00-1422 Document #636518 Filed: 11/06/2001 Page 2 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

tives threatened harsher enforcement of company work rules

(if the union won the election), when a supervisor suggested

the company would fire union supporters, when the company

sanctioned an employee for missing work to testify before the

Board's Administrative Law Judge, and when the employer

disseminated a pamphlet threatening to close the facility if

the union won. See, e.g., Purdue Farms v. NLRB, 144 F.3d

830, 834-35 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

We also sustain the Board's conclusion that Mid-Mountain

violated s 8(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. s 158(a)(1), when it removed prounion material from the company's outdoor break area, while

permitting anti-union literature to remain. Once an employer

allows employee speech in a specific area of company property, the employer may not selectively censor the employees'

union-related speech. See Container Corp. of Am., 244

N.L.R.B. 318, 318 n.2 (1979) (holding that once an employer

permits use of its bulletin boards for employee postings, it

may not discriminate against pro-union messages). Cf. Helton v. NLRB, 656 F.2d 883 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (finding incumbent union committed an unfair labor practice when it removed employee speech critical of union from bulletin boards

where other employee speech was permitted). When the

employee break area is filled with literature of all sorts, an

employer's selective removal of pro-union pamphlets conveys

the unmistakable message of hostility toward unionization.

In regard to another incident, the Administrative Law

Judge concluded that Mid-Mountain did not selectively remove union literature from tables in a break area in mid-July

1996. See Mid-Mountain Foods, 332 N.L.R.B. No. 19, 2000

WL 1390484, at *30 (Sept. 21, 2000). The Board overturned

this factual conclusion, crediting--so counsel for the Board

explained at oral argument--the testimony of a MidMountain employee that a supervisor had done just that.

The company did not contest this particular finding of the

Board, and we therefore will uphold it.

It is unnecessary for us to consider the Board's alternative

ground that the National Labor Relations Act required the

company to allow pro-union literature to remain in break

USCA Case #00-1422 Document #636518 Filed: 11/06/2001 Page 3 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

areas indefinitely unless the papers were "strewn about in an

unsightly or hazardous manner," even if the company was

throwing away all literature and trash in the area. MidMountain Foods, 2000 WL 1390484, at *2. The Board did

not explain why an employee's "right to distribute" literature,

see NLRB v. Magnavox Co., 415 U.S. 322, 325-26 (1974);

Republic Aviation v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793, 803 n.10 (1945),

includes the right to use a company's break room as an

extended distribution center, or why a company's practice of

regularly cleaning out such areas, without discriminating

between the type of material employees leave behind, should

give rise to a violation of the Act. Compare Mid-Mountain

Foods, 2000 WL 1390484, at *2, with Container Corp. of Am.,

244 N.L.R.B. 318, 318 n.2 (1979); The Heath Co., 196

N.L.R.B. 134, 134-35 (1972); Union Carbide Corp., 259

N.L.R.B. 974, 980 (1981); Mid-Mountain Foods, 2000 WL

1390484, at *2 to *4. We leave to another day the issues the

Board's alternative holding presents.

The petition for judicial review is denied. The Board's

cross-petition for enforcement is granted.

USCA Case #00-1422 Document #636518 Filed: 11/06/2001 Page 4 of 4