N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C OR NELE A. OVER STREET, R e giona l Dire c tor of the Twe nty -Eighth R e gion of the Nationa l La

bor R e lations B oa

rd, Pe t i tione r-Appe lle e , v. SHAM R OC K FOODS C OM PANY,

R e sponde nt-Appe lla

nt. No. 16-15172

D.C . No. 2:15-c v-01785-DJH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na D ia ne J. Hum e te wa , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 15, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd TUNHEIM , * * C hie f Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
FEB 17 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble John R . Tunhe im , C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M i nne sota , sitting by de signa tion.Sham

roc k Foods a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of a te m pora ry injunc tion unde r Se c tion 10(j) of the Nationa l La

bor R e lations Ac t (“

NLR A” ), 29 U.S.C
. § 160(j). W e a ffirm
. 1. As a n initial m atte r, the portions of the te m pora ry injunc t ion re late d to the disc ha rge of Thom a s W a lla c e are not m oot, notwithsta nding these ttle m e nt
a gre e m e nt in whic h W a lla c e a c c e pte d a $214,000 pa ym e nt in lieu of re insta

te m e nt,
and wa ive d his right to re insta te m e nt a nd to a ny othe r a dm inistra

tive re m e dy
. C la im s a re m oot “ [i] f the re is no longer a possibility tha t [the litiga

nt] c an obta in
re lie f for his c la im .” Foste r v . C arson , 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th C ir. 2003) (quoting Ruv alc aba v . C

ity of L.A. , 167 F.3d 514, 521 (9th C ir. 1999)). He re , the R e giona l Dire c tor’ s c la im s with re spe c t to W a lla c e ’ s disc ha

rge are not m oot. TheNationa l La b or R e lations B oa

rd re ta ins thea

uthority to orde r W a lla c e ’ s re insta

te m e nt a nd othe r re late d re m e die s. “ [T] he B oa rd a lone is ve ste d with la wful disc re tion to de te rm ine whe the r a proc e e ding, whe n onc e institute d,
m ay be a ba ndone d
. ” Inde

p. Stav e C

o . , 287 N.L.R .B . 740, 741 (1987) (quoting Robinson Fre ight Line

s , 117 N.L.R .B . 1483, 1485 (1957)). Like wise , “ the B oa

rd ha s no sta tutory obliga

tion to de fe r to priva

te se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nts,” a lthough it

“ m ay de fe r in its disc re tion.” N LRB v . Int’l Bhd. of Elec . W ork e rs, Loc al Union 112 , 992 F.2d 990, 992 (9th C i r. 1993). Give n tha t the se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt
2be twe e n Sham roc k Foods a

n d W a lla c e doe s not dep rive the B oa rd of its a uthority to orde r W a lla c e re i nsta

t e d, a nd tha t “ t he unde rly ing purposeof Se c tion 10(j) is . . . to pre se rve the B oa

rd’ s re m e dia l powe r while it proc e sse s the c ha rge ,” Mc D e rmott
v . Ampe r sand Publ’g., LLC

, 593 F.3d 950, 957 (9th C i r. 2010) (inte rna l quota tions
om i tte d), the R e giona l Dire c tor’ s pe tition for te m pora ry re lie f with re spe c t to W a lla c e ’ s disc ha

rge is not moot. 1 2. W e re vie w the d i stric t c ourt’ s gra nt of injunc tive re lie f pursua nt to Se c tion 10(j) of the NLR

A for an a buse of disc re tion. Mc

De r mott , 593 F.3d a

t 957. “ The distric t c o urt a

buse s its disc re tion if it re lie s on a c le arly e rrone ous finding of fac t
or an e rrone ous le g a l sta

nda rd.” Small v

. Ope rativ e Plaste re rs’ & C e m e nt Masons’ Int’l Ass’n Loc a l 200 , 611 F.3d 483, 489 (9th C ir. 2010). The distric t c ourt a

p plie d the c orre c t le ga l sta nda rd to the te m

pora ry injunc tion in this c a s e , giving some de fe re n c e to the R e giona l Dire c tor a nd de c lining to a

pply the he ighte ne d sta

nda rd announc e d in Ov e rstre e t v . Unite d

1 W e a lso notetha

t, give n “ the nature of inte rim

§ 10(j) re lie f and of the B oa rd’ s fina l re m e dia l powe r,” ofte n a “ § 10(j) re m e dy w ill be ide ntic a l, or a t le a st ve ry sim ila r, to the B o ard’ s fina l orde r.” Frank l v . HTH C

orp. , 650 F.3d 1334, 1366 (9th C ir. 2011), c e r t de nie d , 132 S. C t . 1821 (2012). “Ve ry ofte n , the m ost e ffe c tive wa

y to prote c t the B oa

rd’ s a bility to re c re ate [the ] re lationships [tha t would e xist ha d the re be e n n o unfa ir la bor pra c tic e ] and re s tore the sta tus quo will be for the c ourt itse lf to orde r a re turn to thesta

tus quo.” Id.

3Brothe rhood of C arpe nte rs, Loc al Union N o. 1506 , 409 F.3d 1199, 1207, 1210-12 (9th C ir. 2005). Thehe ighte ne d sta nda rd a pplie s whe n a

n injunc tion would c re ate

“ at le a st som e risk tha

t c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d spe e c h will bee njoine d,” in whic h c a s e “ only

a pa rtic ula rly strong showing of like l y suc c e ss, a n d of ha rm . . . a s we ll [will] suffic e ” to justify issuing the

re que ste d injunc tion. Unite d Bhd. of C arpe nte rs , 409 F. 3d a

t 1208 n.13; se e also Ope rativ e Plaste re rs’ , 611 F.3d a t 491; Mc De rmott , 593 F.3d a

t 958. He re , the distric t c ourt’ s injunc t ion im plic ate s Sha

m roc k Foods’ s spe e c h, insofa r a s it prohibits inte

rrogat ing e m

ploy e e s a bout union sy

m pathie s, thre ate ning loss of be ne fits or wa ge s or othe r re prisa l, prom ising be n e fits in re turn for not supporting the

union, solic iting a

nd prom ising to re m e dy

e m ploy e e grie va

n c e s, a nd dire c ting e m

ploy e e s to re port union a c tivity . B ut the injunc tion prohibits only
c oe rc iv espe e c h, whic h is not prote c te d by the First Am e ndm e nt or the Nationa l La bor R e lations Ac t. Se e N LRB v . Gisse l Pac k

ing C o . , 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969).

“ [A] n e m ploy e r is fre e to c om

m unic ate to his e m

ploy e e s a ny of his ge ne ra l vie ws
a bout unionism

or a ny of his spe c ific vie ws a

bout a pa rtic ula r union, [but only] so long a s the c om

m unic ations do not c onta in a ‘ t hre at of re prisa l or forc e or prom ise of be ne fit.’ ” Id. (quoting 29 U.S.C . § 158(c )); se e also C hambe r of C

omme rc e v . Brow n , 554 U.S. 60, 67 (2008) (noting tha t the Supre m e C ourt ha s “ re c ogniz [e d]
4the First Am e ndm e nt right of e m ploy e rs to e n ga ge in nonc oe rc iv e spe e c h a bout unioniz ation” (e m

pha sis a dde d))

. The injunc t ion in this c a se doe s not pre ve nt Sham roc k Foods from

e xpre ssing its opinions re ga rding union re

pre se ntation, or from othe rwise e nga ging in nonc oe rc ive spe e c h, a nd so it doe s not pre se nt a risk of infringing Sha

m roc k Foods’ s rights under the First Am e ndm e nt or Se c tion 8(c ) of the N LR A. Apply ing the ordina

ry sta nda rd for granting a

te m pora ry injunc t ion, the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in finding tha t the R e giona l Dire c tor is like ly to suc c e e d on the m e rits of his c la im , tha t irre p ara ble ha rm is like l y without pre l im ina ry re l ie f, and tha

t the ba la nc e of ha rdships a nd the public inte re st fa

vor a n injunc tion. Se e Frank

l , 650 F.3d a

t 1355 (holding tha

t c ourts de t e rm i ne whe the r a Se c tion 10(j) injunction is “ just a nd prope r” by

a p p ly ing the tra ditiona l e quita ble
c rite ria use d to de c ide whe the r to gra nt a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion). First, the e m

ploy e e and e m

ploy e r a ffida

vits, m e e ting tra

nsc ripts, a

n d te stim ony be fore the a dm inistra

tive la w judge (“ A LJ” ) support thedistric t c ourt’ s finding tha

t the R e giona l Dire c tor is like ly to suc c e e d on the m e rits of his c l a im s that Sham roc k Foods c om

m itte d num e rous unfa ir la bor pra c t ic e s in viola

t ion of Se c tions 8(a)(1) and 8(a )(3) of the NLR A. Tha t is, there c ord shows a

like lihood of suc c e ss on them e rits with re spe c t to c la im s tha t , on a t le a st one oc c a sion,
5Sham

roc k Foods unla

wfully : thre at e ne d e m

ploy e e s with loss of bene fits a nd othe r
re prisa l if the y

unioniz e d; inte rrogate d e m ploy e e s a bout union sy

m pathie s ;
surve i lle d e m

ploy e e s’ p rote c te d c onc e rte d a c tivitie s; c re ate d the im pre ssion of
surve i lla nc e ; gra nte d e m ploy e e be n e fits to influen c e union a c tivity ; a ske d
e m ploy e e s to disc l ose union a c tivitie s of the ir c olle a gue s; inform e d e m ploy e e s tha

t it would befutile for the m to se le c t the union; solic ite d grie va nc e s a nd prom ise d to
c orre c t the m

a s a re ward for not supporting the union; se le c tive l y

e nforc e d nodistribution a

nd no-solic ita

tion rule s by

c o nfisc ating union lite

rat ure ; a nd disc rim inate d by

disc ha rging a n d disc iplining union supporte rs. 2 , 3 The distric t c ourt a l so did not a buse its disc re tion in finding a like lihood of irre pa ra ble ha rm a bse nt pre lim i na

ry re lie f. The re c o rd shows a n obse rve d drop-off in union a c tivity , a s e vide nc e d by a de c line in the num

be r of union a

uthoriz ation

2 Sham roc k Foods is c o rre c t tha

t be fore the ALJ the R e g i ona l Dire c tor a ba ndone d his c la i m s with re spe c t to som e spe c ific inc ide nts, a nd tha t the ALJ found som e of the a lle g e d inc ide nts not to be unfa ir la bor pra c tic e s. B ut, the R e giona l Dire c tor m a inta ine d at the he a

ring be fore the ALJ tha

t Sha m roc k Foods c om m itte d unfa i r la

bor pra c tic e s of e a c h ty

pe a d dre sse d in theinjunc t ion, a nd the ALJ found a

t le a st one unfa i r la

bor pra c tic e in e a c h c at e gory a l le ge d
. 3 The distric t c ourt did not hold Sha m roc k Foods’ s e xpre s sion of a nti-union vie w s like ly

to be an unfa ir la

bor pra c tic e , nor did thec ourt e njoin suc h e xpre ssion. Inste a d, the distric t c ourt he ld, inte r a lia , tha t Sha m roc k Foods like ly

c om m itte d a n unfa ir la bor pra c tic e at a

Ja nua ry 28, 2015 m andat ory

e m ploy e e m e e ting by thre ate ning the loss of be ne fits. 6c ards signe d a nd in a tte nda n c e at union orga

niz ing m e e tings, re sulting from Sham roc k Foods’ s c um

ulative e fforts to de te r unioniz ation. Suc h dim inishe d support for a

union c an be e vide nc e tha t irre pa ra ble ha rm is like ly a bse nt a pre l im ina ry injunc tion. Se e Small v . Av anti He a l th Sy s., LLC , 661 F.3d 1180, 1192 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ [A] de la y in ba rga i ning we ake ns support for the union, a nd a B oa rd orde r c annot re m e dy

this dim inishe d le ve l of support.” ). M ore ove r, “ the disc ha rge of a c tive and ope n union supporte rs risks a se rious a d

ve rse im pa c t on
e m ploy e e inte re s t in unioniz ation a nd c an c re ate irre pa

ra ble ha rm to the c olle c tive ba rga i ning proc e ss.” Frank l , 650 F.3d a

t 1363 (quoting Py e v . Ex c e l C a seRe ady , 238 F.3d 69, 74 (1st C ir. 2001)). Give n the doc um e nte d dim inishe d support for the union, a n d the a l le ge dly

disc rim inatory

disc h arge of W a lla c e , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in finding irre pa ra ble ha rm like ly , a bse nt pre lim i na

ry re lie f, due to the c um

u lative e ffe c t

of the a lle ge d unfa ir la

bor pra c tic e s. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in finding tha t the ba la nc e of ha rdships a nd the public inte re st fa

vor a n injunc tion. “ [T] he Distric t C ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t the R e giona l Dire c tor ha d shown like ly

irre pa ra ble ha rm to the [union orga

niz ing c a m pa ign] m e ant tha

t the re wa s a l so c onside ra ble we ight on his side

of the ba la

nc e of the ha

rdships.” Id. at 1365. Sham roc k ha s not shown
any c ounte rva iling ha

rdship, a s the injunc tion doe s no m o re tha n re quire Sham

roc k
7to c e a se its c oe rc ive c onduc t a nd spe e c h
. Like wise , “ the public inte re s t is to e nsure that an unfa ir la

bor pra c tic e will not suc c e e d be c a use the B oa

rd ta ke s too long to inve stiga te and a djudic ate the c ha

rge .” Id. (quoting Mille r v . C al. Pac . Me d. C

tr. , 19 F.3d 449, 460 (9th C ir.1994), abrogate d on othe r grounds as rec ognize d by Frank l , 650 F.3d a

t 1355). Thegrant of a pre lim ina ry injunc tion se rve s the public inte re s t in this c a se by

pre v e nting Sha

m roc k Foods from

suc c e ssfully

unde rm ining the union orga

n i z ing e ffort through potentia lly unla wful ta c tic s. For the se re a sons, we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s te m

pora ry injunc t ion orde r in a l l re spe c ts. AFFIRM E D.

8