Calif. Court Invalidates Two Laws Restricting Employers from Stopping Union Trespassing on Private Property
| 07.29.10 |
|
The California Court of Appeal has struck down two state laws that have made it nearly impossible for California employers to obtain injunctive relief in situations where unions are engaging in picketing or leafleting activity that constitutes trespass on private property. The ruling does not extend to public property where picketing, leafleting, and other activities are presumably protected. In Ralphs Grocery v. UFCW, No. C060413 (Cal. Ct. App. July 19, 2010), the court considered whether a grocery store must permit uninvited access to its property by a labor organization attempting to publicize a dispute with the store. The court concluded that the area outside the grocery store—where United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) members maintained a picket line, carried signs, and handed out flyers—was not a public forum and that the statutes allowing access to private property were unconstitutional. The court therefore determined that Ralphs was entitled to an injunction. Because the ruling involves significant freedom of speech, property rights, and protected labor activities issues, it seems likely that the union will appeal the Ralphs Grocery decision to the California Supreme Court. |
Considering the constitutionality of the combined statutes
The critical issue considered by the court was the constitutionality of two statutes: the Moscone Act and Labor Code section 1138.1. Enacted in 1975, the Moscone Act purports to deprive the courts of jurisdiction to issue restraining orders or injunctions prohibiting peaceful picketing relating to a labor dispute. Similarly, Labor Code section 1138.1 purports to restrict courts from issuing injunctions in a case involving a labor dispute absent a hearing with live witnesses and certain findings of fact, which is an expensive and time-consuming process compared to the usual procedure of submitting declarations and a motion brief.
Taken together, the two provisions effectively restricted an employer from protecting its private property from trespass absent additional unlawful conduct by union representatives.
The court held that the two statutes impermissibly favored speech by unions over speech related to other matters and, thus, were an impermissible content-based regulation of speech violating the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
An injunction was appropriate
The court also rejected the UFCW’s argument that, putting aside the Moscone Act and Labor Code section 1138.1, a preliminary injunction was not justified because: (1) there was no unlawful act; (2) there was no irreparable harm; and (3) Ralphs failed to show that its rules restricting third parties from using its property to make speeches were reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
The court held that: (1) there was no requirement that an unlawful act beyond the trespass be committed, (2) a continuing trespass under these circumstances constitutes irreparable harm as a matter of law for which damages are not adequate, and (3) time, place, and manner restrictions do not apply to a private forum.
The lesson
The holding in Ralphs Grocery empowers employers to minimize the disruption of union activity at their businesses by obtaining injunctions when unions trespass on private property to engage in so-called information picketing and leafleting. While the standards for injunctive relief remain restrictive in California, unions can no longer rely on the two statutes at issue to effectively bar employers from obtaining an injunction.
