FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 8, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble Stephen Limbaugh, United States District Judg e for the Easter

n District of * Missouri, sitting by

designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14126

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 1 7 3 0 - CV - J D W - TBM R O C H E L L E K E N T O V , R e gi ona l D i r e c t orof

the 12th R e gi on o f th e N a tio n a l L ab o rR e la tio n s B o a r d , f o ra n d o n b e h a lf

o f th e N a tio n a l L a b o rR e la tio n s B o a r d , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s SHEE T M ET AL W ORKERS ' I NTERNA TI ON AL A S S O C I A T I O N L O C A L 1 5 , A F L - C I O , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 8, 2005) B ef ore T JO F L A T and K R A V IT C H , C i rc ui tJudg es and L IM B A U G H , D i stri ct * Judg e.Th eho sp ital is a 27 7 b e d ac utec arefac ili ty wi th a pp ro ximate ly

1, 50 0 empl oye e s. 1 2 K R A V IT C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: S he e tM e t a l W or ke r s ’ I nt e rna t i ona l A s s oc i a t i on L oc a l 15, A F L - C I O ( “ the U ni on” ) , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof a pe t i t i on f

ora t e m por a ry i nj unc t i on unde rS e c t i on 10( l) of

the N a t i ona l L aborR e l a t i ons A c t( “ N L R A ” ) , f i l e d by R ochel l e K ent ov , the R egi on al D i re ct or of the T w el fth R egi on of the N at i on al L a b o rR e la tio n s B o a r d ( “th e B o a r d ” ) . I . Ba c k g r o und T he U ni on ha s a l abordi s put e w i th M a s s e y M e t a l s , I nc . ( “ M a s s e y ” ) a nd W or ke r s T e m por a ry S t a f f i ng ( “ W T S ” ) , i n c onne c t i on w i th the i rus e of non- uni on l abor for an ong oi ng construct i on proj ec tatB ra nd on R egi on al M edi ca l C ent er ( “ the hos pi t a l ” ) . M a s s e y i s a s he e tm e t a l f abr i c a t i on a nd i ns t a l l a t i on c ontr a c t or 1 an d W T S i s a st affi n g ag en cy th atsu p p l i es l ab o r em p l o yees t o M assey. O n M a r c h 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , th e k e y e v e n t g iv in g r is e to th e in s ta n t c a s e o c c u rr e d . F ora bouttw o hour s , the U ni on s t a ge d a m oc k f une r a l pr oc e s s i on i n f

r ontof the hos pi t a l . S pe c i f

i c a l l y , the pr oc e s s i on e nt a i l e d f ourr e pr e s e nt a t i ve s c a rry i ng a l a r ge obj ec tre se m bl i ng a c offi n b ac k and forth o n a si dew al k al on g O akfi el d D ri ve, c r o s s in g S o u th M o o n A v e n u e w h ic h le a d s d ir e c tly in to th e h o s p ita l’s m a inThe event was documented by a videotapewhich is part of the re cord. Theparties 2 agreethat the video fairly depicts what occur

red. T h er e i s n o al l egat i o nth atth e h an d b i l l s we re fa l s e o r m i s l ea di n g. 3 3 e ntr a nc e a nd i nt e r s e c t s w i th O a kf i e l d D r i ve . O a kf

i e l d D r i ve a nd S outh M oon 2 A ve nue i nt e r s e c ta bout100 f e e tf r om the hos pi t a l ’ s m a i n e ntr a nc e . T he f our re pres ent at i ves w er e a cc om pani ed by anot her U ni on re pres ent at i ve, w ho w ore a n ov er si ze d g ri m re apercostum e a nd ca rr i ed a l ar ge si ckl e. A s the process i on pass ed i n frontof the ho spi t al , the “ gri m re aper ” m ar ched al on g w i th the “ pal l bear er s. ” A s p a r t o f

th e p r o c e s s io n , th e U n io n b r o a d c a s te d s o m b e rf u n e r e a l m u s ic ov erl ou d speakers m ou nt ed on a f l atbed t ra i l erthatw as po si t i on ed nearby. In a ddi t i on, f

ourothe rU ni on r e pr e s e nt a t i ve s , s om e w e a r i ng t - s hi r t s be a r i ng the U ni on l ogo, di s tr i but e d ha ndbi l l s t o pe r s ons e nt e r i ng a nd l e a vi ng the hos pi t a l . T he ha ndbi l l s a c c ur a t e l y de t a i l e d a l l e ga t i ons f r om s t a t e c our tl a w s ui t s c onc e rni ng f our r e c e ntpa t i e ntde a ths a tthe hos pi t a l . T he y w e r e e nt i t l e d: “ G oi ng t o B r a ndon 3 R e gi ona l H os pi t a l S houl d N otbe a G r a ve D e c i s i on. ” E a c h ha ndbi l l c ont a i ne d the st at em ent : “ A pu bl i c s ervi ce m es sa ge fr om the S heetM et al W orkers ’ Int ernat i on al A ss oci at i on . ” T he m oc k f

une r a l pr oc e s s i on w a s or de r l y . T r a f f i c w a s notbl oc ke d a nd p e d e s tr ia n s w e r e n o t o b s tru c te d . T h e in d iv id u a ls h a n d in g o u t le a f le ts w e r e o r d e r ly a nd di d noti nt e r f

e r e ori m pe de w i th the e gr e s s ori ngr e s s of a ny i ndi vi dua l s t o or4

f r om the hos pi t a l . N o c i t a t i ons ora rr e s t s w e r e m a de . S om e pa s s e r s - by w a l ke d up to th e U n io n r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s to in q u ir e a b o u t th e p u rp o s e o f th e d e m o n s tr a tio n . O ne pe r s on w ho r e c e i ve d a ha ndbi l l t a l ke d t o a U ni on r e pr e s e nt a t i ve a boutthe a lle g e d ly im p r o p e rc a r e h e rh u s b a n d w a s r e c e iv in g a s a p a tie n t in th e h o s p ita l. A ho spi t al se curi ty off

i ce r r eport ed thata w i fe of a pat i entatthe ho spi t al w h o h a d d ie d th a t m o rn in g b e c a m e u p s e t a t s e e in g th e d e m o n s tr a tio n a n d w o u ld n o t w a lk o u t to h e rc a rb e c a u s e d o in g s o r e q u ir e d h e rto p a s s b y th e d e m o n s tr a tio n . A no ther i nd i vi du al w ho had a fami l y m em ber bei ng tre at ed i nsi de the ho spi t al c o m p la in e d to s e c u r ity o f f ic e r s a b o u t th e d e m o n s tr a tio n b e c a u s e h e d id n o t th in k it w a s ap p r o p r ia te . F ol l ow i ng the eventi n q uest i on , on M ar ch 17 , 20 04 , the ho spi t al fi l ed an u n f a irlab o rp r a c tic e c h a r g e w ith th e B o a r d , a lle g in g , in te ra lia , th at th e U n io n ’s c onduc tc ons t i tut e d a n unl a w f ul s e c onda ry boy c ott , i n vi ol a t i on of S e c t i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) of

the N L R A , 29 U . S . C . § 158( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) , i n tha ti tc oe r c e d or r e s tr a in e d th e n e u tr a l s e c o n d a ry e m p lo y e rh o s p ita l a n d its p a tie n ts a n d v is ito r s w ith an obj ec tof forc i ng or re qu i ri ng the ho spi t al t o cea se do i ng bu si ness w i th M as se y a n d W T S , w ith w h o m th e U n io n h a s a p r im a ry lab o rd is p u te . O n J ul y 27, 2004, the B oa r d’ s R e gi ona l D i r e c t orf i l e d a pe t i t i on i n the U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u r t f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f F lo r id a , s e e k in g a n in te r imInp ert i n entp art , th e i n j un ct i o n“e n

j o i n ed an d re s tra i n ed[ th e uni o n ] fr o mthre at en i n g, 4 coercingor re straining[the hospital] by stag ing stre et theater, proc essions, picketing , patrolling and /or any mann e r o f c on du c t c alculate d toind uc eindivi du als n ot to p atronizetheho sp ital, when c onducted with an obje ctive of f orcingor re quiring[the hospital] to cease ha ndling or otherwise de alingin the products or service s of or to ce ase doingbusiness with [ Massey] and/or [W TS] .” Theinjunction did not prohibi t peac eful ha ndbilling without picketing , patrolling , or proce ssion. 5 i nj unc t i on unde rS e c t i on 10( l) of the N L R A , 29 U . S . C . § 160( l) , pe ndi ng c om pl e t i on of

the B oa r d’ s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e e di ngs a ga i ns tthe U ni on. T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the pe t i t i on, f i ndi ng r e a s ona bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha tthe U ni on had eng aged i n u nfai r l abor pract i ce s i n v i ol at i on of S ec t i on 8(b)(4)(i i )( B ) an d th ati n t eri m i n

j u n ct i v e rel i ef w as j u stan d p ro p er. T h e U n i o n n o w ap p eal s, 4 r a is in g tw o is s u e s : ( 1 ) w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in g r a n tin g th e in te r im i nj un ct i on ; and (2) even i f a n i nj un ct i on i s proper, w hether thi s part i cul ar in ju n c tio n is o v e rb r o a d . II . S tan d ard of R evi ew W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re rr o ra n d its c onc l us i ons of

l a w f ore rr or . A r l ook v. S . L i c ht e nbe r g & C o. , I nc . , 952F . 2d 367, 37 2 (11 th C i r. 19 92 ). F i nal l y, w e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s gra ntof the re qu es t ed r e lie f f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . I d . I I I . D i s c u s s i on S e c t i on 10( l) of the N L R A autho ri ze s di stri ctcourt s t o g ra ntt em po ra ry i nj un ct i ve re l i ef

pend i ng the B oard’ s r es ol ut i on of ce rt ai n u nfai r l abor pract i ce6

char ges, such as se cond ary boycott s, w hi ch ar e l i kel y t o h ave adi srup t i ve ef fe ct upon the f

l ow of c om m e r c e . 29 U . S . C . § 160( l); D o w d v . In t’ l L o n g sh o re m en ’s A s s ’ n, 975 F . 2d 779, 782- 83 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . A S e c t i on 10( l) p r o c e e d in g is a nc i l l a ry t o the B oa r d’ s a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e e di ngs , a nd the ul t i m a t e de t e r m i na t i on o f th e m e r its o f

th e u n f a irlab o rp r a c tic e c a s e is r e s e r v e d f o rth e B o a r d , s u b

je c t to re vi ew by the court s of app ea l s und erS ec t i on s 10(e) and (f) of the N L R A . S ee D o w d , 9 7 5 F .2 d 7 7 9 . I n r e vi e w i ng the gr a ntof a S e c t i on 10( l) i nj unc t i on, w e c ons i de ronl y : ( 1) w hether the B oard has s ho w n “ re as on abl e c ause t o b el i eve” thata uni on has vi ol a t e d the N L R A a s a l l e ge d, a nd i f s o, ( 2) w he the ri nj unc t i ve r e l i e f i s “ j us t ” a nd

“ pr ope r . ” S e e I d. a t783. I n D ow d, thi s c our te xpl a i ne d: W he n c onf

r ont e d w i th a pe t i t i on f

ori nj unc t i on unde rs e c t i on 10( l) , the f u n c tio n o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u r t is n o t to d e te r m in e w h e th e ra n u n f a ir l a borpr a c t i c e ha s i n f

a c tbe e n c om m i tt e d, buts i m pl y t o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe r e i s r e a s ona bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha ta vi ol a t i on of the [N atio n al L ab o r R elatio n s] A ct h as o cc u rr ed . T h e d istrict co u rt’s i nqui ry i nt o r e a s onabl e c a us e i s l i m i t e d t o e va l ua t i ng w he the rthe B o a r d ’s th e o r ie s o f

la w a n d f

a c t a r e n o t in s u b s ta n tia l a n d f r iv o lo u s . T hi s def er ent i al re vi ew i s app ropri at e a tthe i nj un ct i on st age e ven w h e r e th e th e o ry u n d e r ly in g th e p e titio n is ‘u n te s te d ’ o r‘n o v e l,’ in or de rt o pr e s e r ve the l e ga l i s s ue f orB oa r d de t e r m i na t i on. I n a ddi t i on t o de m ons tr a t i ng r e a s onabl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha ta n unf a i rl abor p r a c tic e h a s o c c u rr e d , th e B o a r d m u s t s h o w th a t e q u itab le r e lie f is ‘ j u stan d p ro p er’ u n d er th e ci rcu m st an ces. I d . ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itte d ) .7

A p p ly in g th is d e f

e r e n tia l r e v ie w h e r e , w e f ir s t e x a m in e w h e th e rth e r e is r e a s ona bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha tthe U ni on vi ol a t e d S e c t i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) of the N L R A , w h ic h p r o h ib its s e c o n d a ry b o y c o tts . S e c tio n 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( ii) ( B ) s ta te s th a t it is “a n u n f a irlab o rp r a c tic e f

o ra lab o ro r g a n iz a tio n ...to th r e a te n , c o e r c e , o rr e s tr a in a ny pe r s on e nga ge d i n c om m e r c e . . . w he r e . . . a n obj e c tthe r e of i s . . . f or c i ng or r e q u ir in g a n y p e r s o n to ...c e a s e d o in g b u s in e s s w ith a n y o th e rp e r s o n .” 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 5 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( ii) ( B ) . T h is p r o v is io n a im s to p r o h ib it a u n io n th a t h a s a lab o rd is p u te w i th o ne em pl oyer(the pri m ary e m pl oyer ) f rom exer t i ng pres sure on anot her n e u tr a l e m p lo y e r( th e s e c o n d a ry e m p lo y e r ) , w h e r e th e u n io n ’s c o n d u c t is c a l c ul a t e d t o f

or c e the s e c onda ry e m pl oy e rt o c e a s e doi ng bus i ne s s w i th the pr i m a ry e m pl oy e r . S e e N a t i ona l W oodw or k M f r s . A s s ’ n v. N L R B , 386 U . S . 612, 6 2 0 - 2 7 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . A s th e Su p r e me Co u r th a s e x p l a i n e d , Se c t i o n 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( i i ) ( B) i m pl e m e nt s “ the dua l c ongr e s s i ona l obj e c t i ve s of pr e s e r vi ng the r i ghtof

l abor or ga ni z a t i ons t o br i ng pr e s s ur e t o be a ron of f e ndi ng e m pl oy e r s i n pr i m a ry l abor d is p u te s a n d o f

s h ie ld in g u n o f

f e n d in g e m p lo y e r s a n d o th e r s f r o m p r e s s u r e s in c o n tr o v e r s ie s n o t th e iro w n .” N L R B v . D e n v e rB ld g . & C o n s tr . T r a d e s C o u n c il, 3 4 1 U .S . 6 7 5 , 6 9 2 ( 1 9 5 1 ) . A vi ol a t i on of

S e c t i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) c ons i s t s of tw o e l e m e nt s : ( 1) a uni on e nga ge s i n c onduc ttha tthr e a t e ns , c oe r c e s , orr e s tr a i ns a n e m pl oy e rorothe rpe r s onAny other objec tives that the Union may have had, such as publicizing alleg ations of 5 improper patient care, do not control the se condar y boycott analysis. See Denver B ldg. & Constr. Trade s Council, 341 U.S. at 689; P ye v. Te amsters L ocal Union No. 122, 61 F .3d 1013, 1023 (1st Cir. 1995). Coercion under Section 8(b) (4)( ii)(B ) involves “nonjudicial acts of a c ompelling or 6 restraining nature, a

pplied by way of conc erte d self-he lp consisting of a strike, picketing , or other e conomic retaliation and pre ssure in the background of a labor dispute.” Ca

rpenters Kentucky State Dist. Council (W ehr Constr., Inc.), 308 NLRB 1129, 1130 n.2 (1992) (quoting Sheet Metal Worker s L ocal 48 v. Ha rdy Corp., 332 F.2d 682, 686 ( 5th Cir. 1964)). 8 e nga ge d i n c om m e r c e ; a nd ( 2) a n obj e c tof the uni on’ s c onduc ti s t o f or c e or r e qui r e a n e m pl oy e rorpe r s on nott o ha ndl e the pr oduc t s of , ort o do bus i ne s s w i th, a nothe rpe r s on. S e e 29 U . S . C . § 158( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) . T he s a t i s f a c t i on of the s e c ond e le m e n t is n o t in d is p u te h e r e , a s th e U n io n c o n c e d e s th a t a t le a s t o n e o f its o b je c tiv e s in s ta g in g th e m o c k f u n e r a l p r o c e s s io n w a s to p r e s s u r e th e h o s p ita l to ce as e doi ng bu si ness w i th W T S and M as se y. T here fore , ou r f ocus i s on w hether 5 the U ni on thr e a t e ne d, c oe r c e d, orr e s tr a i ne d the hos pi t a l w i thi n the m e a ni ng of the NL R A. 6 T h e U n io n ’s p r in c ip a l d e f e n s e is th a t th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t p r o te c te d its ac ti v it ies. T o ad v an ce th is ar g u m en t, th e U n io n re li es o n th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s deci si on i n E dw ar d J. D eB art ol o C orp. v. F l a. G ul f C oastB l dg . & C on str. T ra des C ounc i l , 485 U . S . 568 ( 1988) . T he r e , a uni on pe a c e f ul l y di s tr i but e d truthf

ul hand bi l l s t o cust om er s nea r busi ness es i n a shop pi ng m al l w hi ch urged cust om er s n o t to s h o p a t a n y o f

th e s to r e s u n til th e m a ll o w n e rp u b lic ly p r o m is e d th a t a ll9

c o n s tru c tio n w o r k w o u ld b e d o n e u s in g c o n tr a c to r s w h o p a y th e ire m p lo y e e s f a ir w a g e s . D e B a r to lo , 4 8 5 U .S . a t 5 7 0 . T h e u n io n ’s p r im a ry lab o rd is p u te w a s w ith the construct i on com pany, bu ti tsoug htt o exertpres sure on the m al l ow ner thr ough a c ons um e rboy c ottt o c e a s e doi ng bus i ne s s w i th the non- uni on co n stru ctio n co m p an y. Id . at 5 6 9 . T h e iss u e b ec am e w h eth erth e u n io n ’s h a n d b illin g v io la te d S e c tio n 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( ii) ( B ) . I d . a t 5 7 3 - 7 4 . R e c ogni z i ng the s e r i ous F i r s tA m e ndm e ntpr obl e m s i nvol ve d i n c ons trui ng the N L R A t o p rohi bi tthe un i on ’ s handb i l l i ng , the C ou rtappl i ed the const i tut i on al avoi dance doctri ne, re as on i ng thati nt erpret i ng S ec t i on 8(b)(4)(i i )( B ) t o n otre ac h the hand bi l l i ng conform ed w i th con gres si on al i nt ent . Id. at57 5-76 . T he C ou rt ne ve ra ns w e r e d the c ons t i tut i ona l que s t i on of w he the rthe F i r s tA m e ndm e nt pr ot e c t e d the uni on’ s ha ndbi l l i ng, buts i m pl y he l d tha tthe ha ndbi l l i ng w a s not c o e r c iv e w ith in th e m e a n in g o f S e c tio n 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( ii) ( B ) . I d . a t 5 7 8 , 5 8 8 . D e B a r t ol o de a l tonl y w i th a uni on’ s pe a c e f ul ha ndbi l l i ng i n the a bs e nc e of any a cc om panyi ng pi cket i ng or patrol l i ng . T here fore , the U ni on ’ s r el i ance on that c a s e i s m i s pl a c e d. I nde e d, i n D e B a r t ol o, the C our tc a r e f ul l y di s t i ngui s he d pe a c e f ul expres si ve hand bi l l i ng fr om pi cket i ng and p atrol l i ng , w hi ch i tre as on ed ar e

“ qua l i t a t i ve l y di f

f e r e ntf r om othe rm ode s of

c om m uni c a t i on” a nd m or e l i ke l y t o beTo fu rt her s uppo rt

its F ir st Amendment a

rgument, theUnion

c ite s totheNinth 7 Circuit’s rec ent dec ision in Overstreet v. United Brotherhood of Ca rpenters &J oiners of Am e ri c a , L oc al Union N o. 15 06 , – F .3 d – , 2 00 5 WL

13 46 72 0 ( 9th

Cir . Jun e8, 20 05 ). As wi th its citation to DeBa

rtolo, the Union’s re liance on O verstre et is misplaced. Overstreet involved a union’s use of stationar

y banner s, without any

acc ompanying pa

trolling or pic keting . The Over street c ourt repe atedly noted that the union did not eng ag e in any picketingor patrollingand acknow ledg ed that picketing a nd patrollingmay

be enjoined. O verstre et, 2005 WLat *9-12 (n otingthat “ [a]s in D e B artolo , th eCarp e nters ’ b ann e ringdo e s n ot inv olv epatroll ing .. .) ; se ealso Bens onv. Uni tedBrotherh oo d o f C arpe nt ers & J oi ners of America , L ocal s 1 84 and14 98 , 3 37 F. Supp.2d 1275, 1278-79 (also involving stationar y union bannering a

nd distinguishing it from union picketingand patrolling). 10 fo u n d co er civ e u n d erth e N L R A . Id . at 5 8 0 . C it in g to Ju stice S tev en s’s 7 concurrence i n N L R B v. R et ai l S t ore E m pl oyee s, 44 7 U . S . 60 7 (19 80 ) ( S af ec o), the C our te xpl a i ne d: [ P i c ke t i ng i s ] a m i xtur e of c onduc ta nd c om m uni c a t i on a nd the cond uctel em entoft en prov i des the m ostpers uasi ve det erre ntt o thi rd pe r s ons a boutt o e nt e ra bus i ne s s e s t abl i s hm e nt . H a ndbi l l s c ont a i ni ng the s a m e m e s s a ge . . . a r e m uc h l e s s e f f e c t i ve tha n l aborpi c ke t i ng because they depend ent i re l y on the pers uasi ve force of the i dea. I d . ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . T h u s , ap a r t f r o m p e a c e f

u l, truthf ul ha ndbi l l i ng, the C our tr e c ogni z e d tha tm a ny othe rf or m s of uni on s e c o n d a ry p r e s s u r e d o n o t r a is e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t c o n c e rn s . I n doi ng s o, D e B a r t ol o r e a f f i r m e d l ongs t a ndi ng S upr e m e C our tpr e c e de nt th a tth e Bo a r d c a n r e g u l a t e u n i o n s e c o n d a ry p i c k e t i n g u n d e rSe c t i o n 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( i i ) ( B) w ith o u t i m p li ca ti n g th e F irst A m en d m en t. E .g ., In tern atio n al L o n g sh o re m en ’s A s s ’n v . A llie d I n t’l, I n c ., 4 5 6 U .S . 2 1 2 , 2 2 6 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ( “[ w ]e h a v e c o n s is te n tly11

r e j e c t e d the c l a i m tha ts e c onda ry pi c ke t i ng by l aboruni ons i n vi ol a t i on of § 8( b) ( 4) i s pr ot e c t e d a c t i vi ty unde rthe F i r s tA m e ndm e nt . ” ) ; S a f e c o, 447 U . S . 607, 616 (198 0) (pl ural i ty opi ni on ) ( “ A s app l i ed t o p i cket i ng thatpredi ct abl y e ncou ra ges c ons um e r s t o boy c otta s e c onda ry bus i ne s s , § 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) i m pos e s no im p er m issib le re strictio n s u p o n co n stitu ti o n ally p ro tected sp ee ch ”) ; In t’ l B r othe rhood of

E l e c tr i c a l W or ke r s , L oc a l 501 v. N L R B , 341 U . S . 694, 705 ( 1951) ( pr ohi bi t i on a ga i ns ts e c onda ry pi c ke t i ng “ c a rr i e s no unc ons t i tut i ona l a br i dge m e nt of f r e e s pe e c h” ) . T he s e de c i s i ons a r e gr ounde d i n the r e c ogni t i on tha tthe “ l abor l aw s r ef l ec ta c ar ef

ul bal anci ng of i nt er es t s” and u nd ertho se l aw s “ cond uct d esi g n ed n o tt o co m m u n i cat e b u tco erce” m eri t s l ess p ro t ect i o n u n d er th e F i rst A m e n d m e n t. A llie d I n t’l, I n c ., 4 5 6 U .S . a t 2 2 6 . H e r e , th e q u e s tio n is w h e th e rth e U n io n ’s a c tiv ity w a s e q u iv a le n t to s e c onda ry pi c ke t i ng a nd pa tr ol l i ng w hi c h c a n be r e gul a t e d unde rS e c t i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) , orm or e l i ke pe a c e f ul ha ndbi l l i ng, w hi c h r a i s e s F i r s tA m e ndm e nt c onc e rns . W e r e a di l y c onc l ude tha tthe r e i s r e a s ona bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha tthe U ni on’ s c onduc tf

a l l s i n the f

or m e rc a t e gory a s be i ng the f unc t i ona l e qui va l e ntof pi c ke t i ng, a nd the r e f

or e , the F i r s tA m e ndm e ntc onc e rns i n D e B a r t ol o a r e not p r e s e n t in th is c a s e . A lth o u g h th e U n io n d id n o t c a rry tr a d itio n a l p ic k e t s ig n s , it is w e l l - s e tt l e d tha tthe e xi s t e nc e of pl a c a r ds on s t i c ks i s nota pr e r e qui s i t e t o a f i ndi ng12

thata uni on engaged i n p i cket i ng . E . g. , M i ne W orkers D i st . 2 (Je dd o C oal C o. ), 33 4 N L R B 67 7, 68 6 (20 01 ); S ervi ce E m pl oyee s L ocal 87 (T ri ni ty B ui l di ng C o. ), 31 2 N L R B 71 5, 74 3 (19 93 ). Inst ea d, “ [t ] he i m po rt antfe ature of pi cket i ng appears t o be pos t i ng by a l aboror ga ni z a t i on. . . of i ndi vi dua l s a tthe appr oa c h t o a pl a c e of bu si ness t o acc om pl i sh a purpo se w hi ch advances the cause of the un i on , such as ke e pi ng e m pl oy e e s a w a y f r om w or k orke e pi ng c us t om e r s a w a y f r om the em pl oyer ’ s busi ness . ” L um ber & S aw m i l l W orkers L ocal U ni on N o. 27 97 (S t ol t ze L and & L um ber C o. ), 15 6 N L R B 38 8, 39 4 (19 65 ). H er e, the U ni on re pres ent at i ves patrol l ed for app roxi m at el y tw o h ou rs near the e ntr a nc e of

the hos pi t a l , c a rry i ng a l a r ge c of f i n a nd a c c om pa ni e d by a U ni on r e pr e s e nt a t i ve dr e s s e d a s the gr i m r e ape rc om pl e t e w i th a l a r ge s i c kl e . D ur i ng the p r o c e s s io n , th e U n io n p la y e d s o m b e rf u n e r e a l m u s ic f

r o m la r g e s p e a k e r s . T h is a c t i vi ty c oul d r e a s onabl y be e xpe c t e d t o di s c our a ge pe r s ons f r om appr oa c hi ng the hos pi t a l , t o the s a m e de gr e e , i f notm or e , a s w oul d f

i ve uni on a ge nt s c a rry i ng p i ck etsi g n s. L i k e trad i t i o n al seco n d ary p i ck et i n g , th e U n i o n ’ s p ro cessi o n w as a

“ m i xtur e of

c onduc ta nd c om m uni c a t i on” i nt e nde d t o “ pr ovi de the m os tpe r s ua s i ve d e te rr e n t to th ir d p e r s o n s a b o u t to e n te r ” th e h o s p ita l. D e B a r to lo , 4 8 5 U .S . a t 5 8 2 . O ne of the U ni on’ s obj e c t i ve s i n s t a gi ng the pr oc e s s i on w a s t o e xe r tpr e s s ur e on the hos pi t a l t o c e a s e doi ng bus i ne s s w i th the non- uni on c ontr a c t or s , w i th w hom theOur holdingis buttressed by the fact that the Administrative L aw Judge(“ALJ ”) in the 8 underlying unf

air labor prac tice ca se re cently

issued a dec ision, S heet Me tal Workers’ Int’l L oc al 15 (B ra

ndon Re g ion al Me dic al Center) , Ca se12 -C C- 12 58 e t al. (De c e mber 7 , 2 00 4) , in which it found that the Union’s activities on March 15, 2004 c onstitut ed a se condar y boycott. See Rivera -Ve g a v. ConAgra, I nc., 70 F .3d 153, 161 (1st Cir. 1995) (district cour t’s findingof rea sonable c ause w as “c onfirmed by the fact that the administrative law judge , who held a hearing a nd took evidenceof the NLRB’s alleg ations” conc luded that the violations occur red) . In J anuar y 2003, the Union place d a 12-15 f oot inflated rat balloon near the hospital’s 9 main entra

nce. Concurrently , the Union distributed handbills that proclaimed “ There ’s a ‘ Rat’ at Brandon Reg ional Hospital.” The ha ndbills depicted a ra

t in a patient’s room a

nd complained of WTS ’s alleg edly

unlawful c onduct. Due to this ac tivity , in March 2003, thehospital filed an unfair la bor practice charg e ag ainst the Union, alleg ing that the Union had eng ag ed in a unlaw ful seconda ry boycott, in violation of the NLRA. In April 2003, the B oard a nd the Union entered into a settlement agreement in which the Union agree d not to make false or misleading statements about the hospital, not to use a larg e inflate d rat to discourag e consumers from using the hospital, and not to in any other manner coercethe hospital with an object of f orcingthe hospital to stop doi ngbusiness with W TS or other persons. The Union’ s actions on March 15, 2004 that areat issue in this appeal re sulted in a setting a side of the se ttlement agreement. Acc ording ly , the Reg ional Direc tor issued an administrative c omplaint alleg ing that the Union’s conduct on Ma

rch 15, 2004 w as unlawf

ul, as well as the e arlier

conduct in January

2003. On Dec ember

7, 2004, an administrative law judge(“ALJ ”) issued a

decision in the underlying unfair la bor practice c ase, f

inding that the Union had violated the NLRA on both occa sions. See supra, note 8. 13 U n io n h a d a p r im a ry lab o rd is p u te . U n d e rth e s e f a c ts , w e h o ld th a t th e r e is r e a s ona bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha tthe U ni on vi ol a t e d S e c t i on 8( b) ( 4) ( i i ) ( B ) of the NL R A. 8 I n a ddi t i on, i nt e r i m i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f w a s j us ta nd pr ope r . N ot abl y , a f t e rthe B oa r d c om m e nc e d the a dm i ni s tr a t i ve a c t i on, the U ni on’ s c ouns e l not i f i e d the B oard that , fol l ow i ng a tw o w ee k h i atus, the U ni on i nt ended t o eng age i n si m i l ar ac t i vi t i es . F urtherm ore, the U ni on had a tra ck re cord of engaging i n sec on dary pr e s s ur e a ga i ns tthe hos pi t a l . I nj unc t i ve r e l i e f w a s j us ta nd pr ope rt o pr e ve ntthe 914

pot e nt i a l a dve r s e i m pa c tof s e c onda ry boy c ott s a tthe hos pi t a l a nd t o pr e s e r ve the s ta tu s q u o p e n d in g th e B o a r d ’s f in a l a c tio n . F i n al l y, w e ad d ress th e U n i o n ’ s arg u m en tth atth e i n j u n ct i o n i s un const i tut i on al l y overbroad. T he U ni on m ai nt ai ns thateven i f i t s m ock fun er al p r o c e s s io n d id n o t im p lic a te th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t, th e b r e a d th o f th e in te r im i nj unc t i on doe s . I n pa r t i c ul a r , the U ni on c ont e nds tha tthe i nj unc t i on f orbi ds a ny n o n h an d b i l l i n g act i v i ty an d d o es n o tp ro v i d e su ffi ci en td i st an ce l i m i t at i o n s. A s a pr e l i m i na ry m a tt e r , the B oa r d c onc e de s tha ti t s 10( l) p e titio n d id n o t s e e k to e n jo in al l “ stre ettheat er ” a nd i nv i t es us t o m od i fy the i nj un ct i on t o rem ov e thatt erm . In l i ghtof thi s c onc e s s i on, w e r e m a nd t o the di s tr i c tc our tt o m odi f y the i nj unc t i on by de l e t i ng the phr a s e “ s tr e e tthe a t e r . ” S e e S c ha ub v. W e s tM i c hi ga n P l um bi ng & H ea t i ng , Inc. , 25 0 F . 3d 96 2, 97 1-72 (6th C i r. 20 01 ) ( m od i fy i ng i nj un ct i on w hi ch exce eded rel i ef

soug ht ). E ve n w i th thi s m odi f

i c a t i on, the U ni on a r gue s tha tthe i nj unc t i on goe s t oo fa r. W e di sa gree . A ft erthe m od i fi ca t i on , the i nj un ct i on prov i des i n p ert i nentpart th atth e U n i o n i s: e nj oi ne d a nd r e s tr a i ne d f r om thr e a t e ni ng, c oe r c i ng orr e s tr a i ni ng [ the hos pi t a l ] by s t a gi ng pr oc e s s i ons , pi c ke t i ng, pa tr ol l i ng a nd/ ora ny m anner of condu ctca l cul at ed t o i nd uce i nd i vi du al s nott o p atroni ze the hos pi t a l , w he n c onduc t e d w i th a n obj e c t i ve of f or c i ng orr e qui r i ng [ the hos pi t a l ] t o c e a s e ha ndl i ng orothe rw i s e de a l i ng i n the pr oduc t s or s e r v ic e s o f

o rto c e a s e d o in g b u s in e s s w ith [ M a s s e y ] a n d /o r[ W T S ]...15

C i t i ng t o D e B a r t ol o, the i nj unc t i on s pe c i f i c a l l y e xc l ude s f

r om i t s pr ohi bi t i on pe a c e f ul ha ndbi l l i ng w i thoutpi c ke t i ng, pa tr ol l i ng, orpr oc e s s i on. C ontr a ry t o the U n i o n ’ s co n t en t i o n , th e i n j u n ct i o n d o es n o ten co m p ass al l n o n -h an d b i l l i n g act i v i ty, butr a the re nc om pa s s e s onl y c oe r c i ve c onduc ttha tha s a s e c onda ry obj e c t i ve a tthe approach t o the neut ra l ho spi t al . T he S up re m e C ou rthas m ade i tcl ea r that co erci o n w i th i n th e m ean i n g o f S ect i o n 8 (b )(4 )(i i )(B ) i s n o tp ro t ect ed b y th e F i rst A m e ndm e nt . S e e , e . g. , D e B a r t ol o, 485 U . S . a t579- 80. I nde e d, the w or di ng of the in ju n c tio n is c o m p a r ab le to th a t o f S e c tio n 8 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( ii) ( B ) o r d e r s th a t c o u r ts r out i ne l y e nf

or c e . E . g. , P y e v. T e a m s t e r s L oc a l U ni on N o. 122, 61 F . 3d 1013, 1018 n. 4 ( 1s tC i r . 1995) ; D ow d v. I nt ’ l L ongs hor e m e n’ s A s s ’ n, 781 F . S upp. 1565, 1575 ( M . D . F l a . 1991) , a f f’ d, 975 F . 2d 779 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . F ur the r m or e , the i nj unc t i on i s i n a c c or da nc e w i th l ongs t a ndi ng r e m e di e s i n thi s c ont e xttha tdo not cont ai n d i st ance l i m i t at i on s. S ee S af ec o, 44 7 U . S . at61 9 (S t evens, J. , concurri ng ); J e ddo C oa l C o. , 334 N L R B a t689; T r i ni ty B ui l di ng C o. , 312 N L R B a t756, e nf’ d, 103 F . 3d 139 ( 9th C i r . 1996) . U nde rthe s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , the i nt e r i m i nj unc t i on, a s m o d if ie d , is ap p r o p r ia te . F orthe f or e goi ng r e a s ons , w e A F F I R M the j udgm e ntof the di s tr i c tc our tbut R E M A N D for m od i fi ca t i on of the i nj un ct i on t o d el et e the ph ra se “ stre ettheat er . ” AF F I RME D a n d RE MAND E D.