UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA UNI TED GOV ERNMENT SECURI TY : OF F I CER S OF AM ERI CA : I NTERNATI ONAL

UNI ON e t al

. , : : Pla int if fs , : Civ il A c tio n N o. : 09 -1 49 0 ( RWR)

: v. : Re Docume nt No.: 2

: SER VI CE E MPL OY EE S : I NTERNATI ONAL

UNI ON e t al

. , : : De fe nd ants . :

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION D ENY I N G TH E P LA INT IF FS ’ M OT I ON F OR A T E M P ORARY RE S T RAI NI NG O R D ER I. IN TR OD UC TIO N This matter is befor e the c ourt on the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporar y restra ining or der (“TRO” ). The pla intiffs, a labor union a nd its local aff

iliate (collec tively , “the UG SOA”),
re pr e se nt e mpl oye e s who wo rk fo r H awk

On e Se c ur ity , Inc . ( “ Ha

wk On e ” ) a s se c ur ity

gua rd s in D.C. g overnme nt buildings and public schools. The defe ndants, the Service Employ ees International Union and its local aff iliate (collec tively , “the SEIU”) , are a compe ting labor union. The UG SOA asser

ts that the SEI U is in breac h of a c ontrac t that the two unions signed in 2002. Acc ording ly , the UGSOA r equests a T RO enjoining the SEIU from c ontinuing to bre ach the
c ontr a c t. B e c a

us e the UG SOAha s f

a ile d to de mon str ate that it is l ike ly to s uf fe r i rr e pa ra ble injury if the cour

t does not issue a TRO, the c ourt denies the motion.

II. F ACTUAL & P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND In 2 00 2, the UG SOAand the SEI U e xec ute d a

n “ anti -r a id a g re e me nt” wh e re in e a c h p art yThe m otion for a TRO also s oug ht an ord er requ iringSE I U to su bm it the dispute to arbitration as 1 the p laintiffs ass erted th e co ntract req uired. P ls.’ Mo t. at 1. B ut be cause the S EIU has since agre ed to s ub m itth e di sp ut e to arb itra ti on , D ef s. ’ O pp ’na t 2 , th at

p orti on o f U G S O A ’s m ot io n is nowm oot. 2 ag ree d ref rain fr om attempting to org anize employ ees who wer e alr eady repr esente d by

the other party . Pls.’ Mot., Ex . A. The a g ree ment provided that a ny disputes arisingunder it “sha ll be submitt ed at the r equest of e ither par ty to a mutually

ag ree able a

rbitrator f or bindingarbitration.” Id. The UG SOA asser

ts that the SEI U has be en “r aiding ” the UG SOA’s local a ffiliate since April 2009, and see ks an orde r enjoiningthe SEIU from c ontinuing to do so. The SEIU does not 1 dispute that it has rec ently begun to solicit Hawk One e mploy ees, D efs.’ Opp’n at 3-4, but maintains that it is allowed to do so because it ex erc ised its option t o voluntarily terminate the anti-ra id ag ree ment, id. at 4-5. The court turns now to the pla intiffs’ re quest for a TRO.

III . A NA LY SIS A. Legal Standard f

or Injunctive Re lief This court may

issue interim injunctive relief only when the mova

nt demonstrates “ [1] that he is likely

to succe ed on the mer its, [ 2] t hat he is likely to suffer irrepa rable harm in the absenc e of pr eliminary

relief , [3] that the balanc e of e quities tips i n his favor, a nd [4] that an injunction is i n the public intere st.” W inter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 129 S. Ct . 365, 3 7 4 (2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Munaf v. Ge ren , 128 S. Ct . 2207, 2218-19 (2008) ). It is particularly important for the mova

nt to demonstrate a likelihood of suc cess on the me rits. Cf
. Benten v . Kessler , 505 U. S. 1 08 4, 10 85 (1 99 2) (p e r c ur iam) . Ind e e d, a bs e nt a “ su bs tanti a l in dic atio n” of

lik e ly su c c e ss on the merits, “ther e would be no justification for the cour t’s intrusion into t he ordina ry3

proce sses of administration and judicial r eview.” Am. Banke rs Ass’n v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin. , 38 F. Supp. 2d 114, 140 (D.D .C. 1999) (interna l quotation omit ted). The other critica l fac tor in the injunctive relief analy sis is i rre para

ble injury . A movant
mus t “ de mon str ate that ir re pa ra ble inj ur y is likely in the absenc e of a n injunction.” W

inter , 129 S
. C t . at3 7 5 (c i t i n g Los Angeles v. Lyons , 4 61 U. S. 9 5, 10 3 ( 19 83 )) . Ind e e d, if a pa rt y fa ils to make a sufficie nt showing of

irrepa rable injury , the cour

t may deny the motion for injunctive relief without consideringthe other f actor s. CityFed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision , 58 F.3d 738, 747 ( D.C. Cir. 1986). Pr ov ide d th e pla int if f d e mon str ate s a

lik e lih oo d o f s uc c e ss on the merits and of

irrepa rable injury , the cour

t “must balance the competingclaims of injury and must consider the eff ect on e ach pa

rty of the grantingor withholding of the re quested re lief.” Am oc o Pro d. Co. v . G am be ll , 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987). F inally , “cour ts of equity

should pay particula r re g ard f or the public c onsequenc es in employing the extraordinary reme dy of injunction.” W

e inb e rge r v . R om e ro -B arc e lo , 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982). As an e x traordina

ry reme dy , courts should g rant such r elief spa ring ly
. Mazurek

v. Armstrong , 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). The Supreme Court has obse rved “ that a pre liminary injunction is an ex traordina ry and dra stic remedy , one that should not be g rante d unless the movant, by a cle ar showing , car ries the bur den of pe rsuasion.” Id. There fore , althoug h the trial court ha s the discre tion to is sue or de ny a pre liminary

injunction, it i s not a form of r elief grante d l i g h t l y. In addition, any

injunction that the court issues must be ca ref ully circ umscribed a

nd “tailore d to remedy

the har m shown.” Nat’l Tr easury Em ployee s Union v. Y

eutter , 918 F.2d 968, 977 (D.C. Cir. 1990).4 B. Th e P laintif

fs H ave F ailed to Sh ow I rre parable Injury The Nor ris-L aGua

rdia Ac t, 29 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (“N L GA”) g overns the issuanc e of injunctive relief

in cer tain case s g rowingout of or involving la bor disputes. In g ener al, the NL GA “e x presse s a basic policy ag ainst the injunction of activities of labor unions.” Int’l Ass’n of Machinists v. Street , 367 U.S. 740, 772 (1961). The Supreme Court has c arve d out an exception to this principle, howe ver, w ith respec t to moti ons for injunctive re lief to enfor ce a n ag ree ment to arbitrate a labor dispute: “when pa

rties have ag ree d to arbitrate a dispute, a c ourt may issue an injunction if, in addition to the usual equitable conc erns, the integrity of the arbitration process would be threatened a bsent interim relief

.” Int’l Bhd. of Elec. W

orkers, Local 1900 v. PotomacElec. Powe r Co. , 6 3 4 F. S u p p . 6 4 2 , 6 4 3 (D
. D. C
. 1 9 8 6 ) ( ci t i n g Boys Mk ts., Inc. v. Re tail C lerks Union , 3 98 U. S. 2 35 , 2 54 (1 97 0) ). “ [A]n i nju nc tio n in a id o f a rb itr atio n is appropr iate . . . only

when the a ctual or thre atene d harm to the a g g rieve d party amounts to a frustration or vitiation of arbitration.” Am. Postal W orkers Union, AFL-CIO v . U.S. Postal Serv. , 3 7 2 F. S u p p . 2 d 8 3 , 9 1 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Int’l Ass’n of Mac hinists & AerospaceW orkers v

. Panoramic Corp. , 668 F.2d 276, 285 ( 7th Cir.1981)). Se izin gon

the a fo re me nti on e d la

ngua g e , th e UG SOAa sse rt s th at it is e nti tle d to a

TRO beca use the integ rity

of the a rbitration proc ess will be under mined absent injunctive re lief. Pls.’ Mot. at 13-15; Pls.’ Reply at 6-11. The UGSOA fur ther a sserts that it will continue to suffer ir re pa ra ble inj ur y a bs e nt a TRO be c a

us e the SEI

U, by br e a c hin gthe anti -r a id a g re e me nt, is “under min[ ing] the UGSOA’ s repr esentational capa city” and de privingthe UGSOA of the competitive adva

ntag e that it is entitled to as Hawk One ’s authorized bar g ainingrepr esentative. Pls.’ Mot. at 13.5

Th e SEI U o pp os e s th e UG SOA ’s mot ion , ma int a ini ngthat th e UG SOAha s o ff e re d o nly speculation that it wil l suffer irrepa rable injury

if the cour

t does not issue a TRO. De fs.’ Opp’ n at 6-11. The SEIU also points out that, pursuant to a provision of the c ollective bar g aining
a g re e me nt c ur

re ntl y in e ff e c t ( the “ c ontr a c t ba

r” pr ov isi on ), the UG SOAis n owand wi ll continue to be Ha

wk One e mploy ees’ sole barg ainingrepr esentative until at least May 31, 2011, when the SEIU will be entitled to petition for a ne w re prese ntation election. Id. at 8-9. The UGSOA re sponds by

asser ting that, notwithstandingthe contra ct bar provision, it face s irrepa rable injury

in the form of a

loss of competitive adva

ntag e. Pls.’ Reply

at 8. More specific ally , UGSOA wa

rns that its “ability

to neg otiate and se rvice members dur ing the period of the c ontrac t bar is cr itical to [ its] ability to retain majority

support when the c ontrac t bar e nds and an e mploy er or

other union for ces a

n elec tion.” Id. at 9. Although the UGSOA’s f ear may be we ll-founded, it fa lls short of the imminence require d for the c ourt to g rant the “ extraordinary and dra stic remedy” of a TRO. Mazurek, 520 U. S. at 97 2. “ Inju

nc tio ns . . . w ill no t is su e to p re ve nt i nju ri e s n e ith e r e xtant no r p re se ntl y threatened, but only

mere ly ‘fe are d.’” Comm. in Solidarit y W ith People of El Sal. (

CISPES) v. Sessions , 9 2 9 F. 2 d

7 4 2 , 7 4 5 -4 6 (D
. C
. C i r. 1 9 9 1 ) ( q u o t i n g Exx on Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n , 589 F.2d 582, 594 ( D.C. Cir. 1978)). The c ases that UG SOA cites in support of its motion bolster the cour

t’s deter mination. I n American P ostal W orkers Union, AFL-CIO v . U.S. Postal Servic e , for e x ample, the c ourt held that the plaintiff f ace d irrepa

rable injury

beca use “pe rmitting the [arbitration] process to proce ed in its normal course would result in the dispute being arbitrated only

afte r [the plaintiff’s] authority to [ obtain its desired re sult] had alr eady expired.” 372 F. Supp. 2d at 91. Thus, the c ourt conc luded that the plaintiff f ace d irrepa

rable injury6

beca use pre vailing in the a

rbitration proc eedingwould have be en “but a n empty victory .” Id. (c i t i n g In t’ l A ss’n o

f M ac hin ist s &Ae ro sp ac e W

or k e rs , 668 F.2d at 286)). He re, the UGSOA fac es no such qua

ndary . The a

nti-raid agree ment direc ts that disputes arising unde r it be submitt ed to binding a

rbitration, seePls.’ Mot., Ex . A, and the pla intiff has off ere d no indication that an ar bitration awa

rd could not re dress a

ny injury cause d by

the SEIU’s alleg ed bre ach, see ge ne ra lly Pls. ’ M ot. , Pl s. ’ R e ply . A c c or din g ly , th e c ourt ho lds that th e UG SOAha s f a ile d to
car ry its burden of de monstrating ir repa rable injury
. See Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England , 454 F.3d 290, 297 ( D.C. Cir. 2006) (obser ving that this C ircuit “ha s set a hig h standard fo r i rr e pa ra ble inj ur y ,” and that th e mov ant m

us t de mon str ate that “ [t]he inj ur y c omp la ine d o f i s of su c h immin e nc e that th e re is a c le ar a nd pr e se nt n e e d f

or e qu ita ble re lie f t o p re ve nt i rr e pa ra ble harm” ) (c itations and quotations omit ted). I f a pa rty moving f or injunctive re lief fa ils to show irrepar able injury , the cour t need not consider the rema ining f

actor s for issuanc e of a

preliminary

injunction. CityFed , 58 F.3d at 747 (s tatin gthat th e mov ant’ s f a ilure to s ho w i rr e pa

ra ble inj ur y “ is s uf fi c ie nt f or [the c ourt ] to
c on c lud e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n b y

re je c tin g[the mov ant’ s] r e qu e st” such that the c ourt was not re quired to re ach the rema ining f actor s releva

nt to the movant’s entitlement to injunctive relief)
.7 IV . C ON CL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, the c ourt denies the pla intiffs’ motion for a TRO. An O rder
c on sis te nt w iththi s Me mor and um O pin ion

is s e pa ra te ly and c onte mpo ra

ne ou sly iss ue d th is 2 0th day of August, 2009.

RI CARDO M. URBI NA Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge