Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02038/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02038-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:160(1) National Labor Relations Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALAN B. REICHARD,

Petitioner, No. C 05-2038 PJH

v. ORDER RE OVERSTREET

AUTOMOTIVE MACHINISTS LODGE

NO. 1103, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

On July 10, 2005, the court invited the parties to submit supplemental briefing

concerning the temporary injunction entered in this case, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision

in Overstreet v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 2005 WL 1346720

(9th Cir., June 8, 2005). Both parties timely submitted briefing on the issue, which the court

has now reviewed. 

In Overstreet, the court determined that requests for injunctions under section 10(l) of

the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. § 160(l)) were to be evaluated under the “just and

proper” standards of § 10(j) claims as set forth in Miller v. California Pacific Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d

449, 455 (9th Cir. 1994), which are identical to the traditional criteria for injunctive relief. 

Namely, the NLRB must show “a combination of probable success on the merits and the

possibility of irreparable harm,” or “serious questions going to the merits, the balance of

hardship tipping sharply in its favor, and at least a fair chance of success on the merits.” Id.,

citing Miller, 19 F.3d at 456. 

Here, the NLRB has demonstrated a likelihood of success on its claims. Section 10(l)

prohibits labor unions from engaging in recognitional picketing when no representation

petition has been filed with the NLRB within 30 days from the onset of picketing. 29 U.S.C. §

Case 4:05-cv-02038-PJH Document 20 Filed 06/28/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

158(b)(7)(C). The NLRB provided in its moving papers evidence that members of the

Automotive Machinists union had engaged in prohibited recognitional picketing, by marching

in front of Future Ford and shouting at the business through a bullhorn. See Hansel Affidavit

Exh. 1 (statements made by Hollibush about union planning recognitional picketing in October

2004); 12/2/04 Hill Affidavit (public statements made by union representative on October 30,

2004 demanding recognition and describing picketing activity); 12/2/04 Hill Decl. Exh. 1

(union flyer from October 2004 demanding recognition); 2/23/05 Hill Decl. Exh. 2 (leaflet

implying that employer would not recognize union); 5/4/05 Bohannon Decl. Exh. 1 (notes from

conversation with union representative where representative stated that union’s goal was to

gain recognition). This evidence is sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the

NLRB’s claim that the union was engaged in prohibited recognitional picketing. 

The union argues that the First Amendment bars NLRB’s requested relief, which the

NLRB disputes. While the court does not give deference to the NLRB’s interpretation of First

Amendment issues, see Overstreet, the Supreme Court has previously held that prohibitions

on picketing do not implicate the First Amendment because “[i]n the labor context, it is the

conduct element [of picketing] rather than the particular idea being expressed that often

provides the most persuasive deterrent to third persons about to enter a business

establishment.” NLRB v. Retail Store Employees Union, Local 1001, 447 U.S. 607, 619

(1980) (Stevens, J., concurring), subsequently adopted by Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v.

Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 580 (1988) (“picketing is

qualitatively different from other modes of communication”). Here, where the picketing

included marching on the sidewalk in front of Future Ford and shouting through bullhorns, the

NLRB may properly regulate the conduct aspects of this picketing without impinging on the

union members’ First Amendment rights. Cf. Overstreet (silent picketing, where union

members merely displayed banners on public streets and did not block entrances or

encourage confrontations between union members and members of the public, considered

protected under the First Amendment). 

Case 4:05-cv-02038-PJH Document 20 Filed 06/28/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Therefore, the NLRB’s proposed prohibition on the union’s recognitional picketing

does not violate the First Amendment, especially since the proposed injunction only prohibits

picketing with the object of gaining recognition, and does not prohibit picketing where the sole

object is to protest Future Ford’s failure to comply with area pay standards. 

Because the NLRB has demonstrated a probability of success on the merits of its

claim, Miller requires that the court presume irreparable injury. 19 F.3d at 460 (irreparable

injury presumed because “the passage of the [NLRA] statute is itself an implied finding by

Congress that violations will harm the public.”). Overstreet did not reach this issue, as it found

no likelihood of success on the merits of the case before it. 

Thus, whether the NLRB’s request for injunctive relief is evaluated under the

reasonable cause standard or the just and proper standard, the court finds that such relief

remains warranted. The temporary injunction granted on May 25, 2005 remains effective. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02038-PJH Document 20 Filed 06/28/05 Page 3 of 3