Court Holds Two California Statutes Limiting Employer's Right to Obtain Injunction During Labor Dispute are Unconstitutional

July 20, 2010

Summary

Yesterday, a California Court of Appeal held that two California statutes that severely limit an employer’s ability to obtain injunctive relief during a labor dispute are unconstitutional, and are therefore invalid.  If this decision is not overturned by the California Supreme Court, employers will have a much better chance to obtain injunctive relief against improper union activities during labor disputes.

Discussion

In Ralphs Grocery Company v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, the Court of Appeal considered whether Ralphs was required to let the UFCW engage in peaceful picketing directly in front of a Sacramento grocery store.  The dispute arose when Ralphs and the UFCW reached an impasse in labor negotiations.  To enforce its demands, the Union picketed the store, encouraging people not to shop there because it was not a union store.  The Union's agents walked back and forth on the sidewalk in front of the store, carrying picket signs and handing out flyers.

Ralphs contended that the sidewalk in front of its store was private property, and as such, the Union was trespassing by using the property without permission to express the Union's views.  The trial court denied Ralphs's request for a preliminary injunction, finding that Ralphs could not satisfy the numerous requirements of Labor Code section 1138.1.  That Labor Code section was enacted in 1999 at the request of organized labor, in order to make it more difficult for employers to obtain injunctions against unions during labor disputes.  In fact, the Court of Appeal described that Labor Code section and the Moscone Act, another union-friendly California law, as "making it virtually impossible for an employer to obtain injunctive relief in a peaceful labor dispute."

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, finding that both the Labor Code section and the Moscone Act violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.  The key to this holding was the finding that the sidewalk in front of the grocery store was a private, not a public, forum.  While private property owners can exclude persons from trespassing on their property, if the property is considered a "public forum," such as the common areas of shopping centers, then the courts may not enjoin the speech of those who enter such areas, provided the person complies with reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions of the property owner.

Following other recent cases, the Court of Appeal held that the entrance area of a large retail store is not a public forum.  As such, Ralphs had the right to limit the speech allowed there.  The Court of Appeal then held that the Labor Code section and the Moscone Act were unconstitutional under both the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, because they favor speech related to labor disputes over speech related to other matters.  In other words, these statutes declare that labor protests on private property are legal, even though a similar protest concerning a different issue would constitute trespassing.  The Court found that forcing Ralphs to accommodate the Union's message on its private property violated Ralphs's free speech right, and its right to exclude trespassers from its property.

What This Means

This decision is likely to be appealed to the California Supreme Court, as organized labor enjoys the protection against injunctions during labor disputes provided by this Labor Code section and the Moscone Act.  However, the decision is well reasoned, and hopefully will stand up on appeal.  Assuming the decision stands, it will make it easier for other employers to enjoin unlawful union activity during strikes and other labor disputes.

This E-Update was authored by Rod Betts.  For more information, please contact Mr. Betts or any other Paul, Plevin attorney by calling (619) 237-5200.

PPS&C's Sizzling Summer Training Set

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR? VOLUNTEER? UNDERSTANDING THE PERILS OF MISCLASSIFICATION
Thursday, August 26, 2010

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: AVOIDING A MILLION-DOLLAR MISTAKE
Thursday, September 23, 2010

For more information go to www.paulplevin.com/summer

Save The Date

PPS&C's 2011 Annual Employment Law Update
Thursday, October 28, 2010

Was this message forwarded to you by a friend?  CLICK HERE to subscribe to the E-update mailing list.

CLICK HERE to find out about PPS&C's employer training programs

CLICK HERE to read other Employment Law E-Updates