Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/409-f-3d-1199-598621054
Timestamp: 2020-08-08 11:42:06
Document Index: 736243186

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8', '§ 158', '§ 10', '§ 160', '§ 10', '§ 160', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 10', '§ 8']

409 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2005), 03-56135, Overstreet v. United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 1506 - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 598621054
Docket Nº: 03-56135.
Citation: 409 F.3d 1199
Party Name: Cornele A. OVERSTREET, Regional Director for Region 28 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 1506, Respondent-Appellee.
409 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2005)
For several years, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union Number 1506 ("the Carpenters") have had a labor dispute with three contracting companies--Brady Company/San Diego ("Brady"), Precision Hotel Interiors ("Precision"), and E & K Arizona ("E & K"). The Carpenters object to those companies' employment of non-union employees and their alleged failure to meet local labor standards--especially wage standards--on construction projects in the Phoenix, Los Angeles, and San Diego metropolitan areas.
The Carpenters decided to try to induce Brady, Precision, and E & K to change their labor practices, by influencing the contracting practices of some companies ("the Retailers" 1) that do business with them. The Carpenters sent the Retailers, also located in or around Phoenix, Los
Angeles, and San Diego, letters promising an "aggressive public information campaign against [Brady, Precision, or E & K]," including "highly visible banner displays" at the Retailers' places of business. The letters urged the Retailers "to not allow [Brady, Precision, or E & K] to perform any work on any of your projects unless and until it generally meets area labor standards." Taking this step, the letters said, would "provide the greatest protection against your firm becoming publicly involved in this dispute."
When the Retailers did not respond, the Carpenters decided to protest at the site of eighteen Retailers that continued to contract with Brady, Precision, or E & K. Near each Retailer but one, 2 the Carpenters set up a four foot by fifteen foot banner that read "SHAME ON [NAME OF RETAILER]" in large red letters, with the words "LABOR DISPUTE" in somewhat smaller black letters on either side of that text. No other words or images appeared on the banners. Individual union members held the banners anywhere from twenty to several hundred feet from the Retailers' entrances. The members also distributed handbills to passing pedestrians, explaining the nature of the "labor dispute." The handbills specified that their underlying complaint was with Brady, Pecision, and E & K, and that the Carpenters believed that by using the service of those three contractors the Retailers were aiding them in undermining regional labor standards.
The Carpenters placed the banners on public sidewalks, facing away from the Retailers. In the vast majority of cases, the Carpenters placed the banners at a significant distance--scores if not hundreds of feet--away from the Retailers' entrances. The Carpenters generally placed the banners to be as visible as possible to passing motorists and other members of the public. There is no indication that the banners were directed at employees of the Retailers, or that any employee declined to work on account of the banners. At no point did the Carpenters block the entrances to the Retailers or directly confront individual customers of those businesses through chants, shouts, or any other means. The Carpenters, instead, remained generally stationary and quiet throughout their bannering activity.
E & K and two of the Retailers--Associated General Contractors of America ("AGC") and Westin Bonaventure Hotel ("Westin")--filed charges with the NLRB against the Carpenters, alleging that the union's bannering activities 3 constituted unfair labor practices in violation of § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(ii)(B). 4 After the NLRB General
Counsel issued a complaint against the Carpenters under § 10(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b), Overstreet filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, pursuant to § 10(l) of the Act, 5 29 U.S.C. § 160(l), seeking injunctive relief barring the Carpenters' bannering activity pending the NLRB's final resolution of the complaint. 6 Overstreet argued that the bannering violates § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the Act because the visibility of the banners to customers--even those banners placed several hundred feet from the entrances of the Retailers--makes the bannering "picketing," and, in the alternative, because the banners include a fraudulent claim--that there is a "labor dispute" with the Retailer--and therefore constitute economic coercion.
The NLRB consolidated the General Counsel's administrative complaint against the Carpenters with complaints regarding similar activities involving other Carpenters locals. The matter was tried before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") in January 2003. The ALJ issued her decision on May 9, 2003, ruling in the complainants' favor. 7 The ALJ asserted that "[a]ctivity short of a traditional picket
line that signals neutrals that sympathetic action on their part is desired by the union is regarded as signal picketing," and concluded that the Carpenters' bannering constituted "picketing." The ALJ further ruled that (1) the Carpenters intended this picket as a means to coerce the Retailers to cease doing business with Brady, Precision, and E & K; and (2) the words "labor dispute" in conjunction with naming the Retailers could only have "conveyed to viewers, including customers and suppliers, ... that [the Carpenters] had primary labor disputes with the [Retailers] named on the banners." The ALJ concluded, finally, that distributing explanatory handbills did not mitigate the message of the banners, because the banners were directed in some measure at passing motorists while only pedestrians received handbills. Accordingly, the ALJ found that the Carpenters' bannering activities violated § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and recommended that the NLRB order the Carpenters to cease and desist its bannering.
We review a grant or denial of a § 10 injunction for abuse of discretion. The district court abuses its discretion if it relies on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or an erroneous legal standard. Miller v. Cal. Pac. Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc). We review the legal standards applied by the district court de novo. Id.
The district court, relying on Nelson v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 46, 899 F.2d 1557 (9th Cir. 1990), asked whether Overstreet had "reasonable cause" to believe that the Carpenters had violated § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). Under Nelson, a "district court may find 'reasonable cause' where the factual allegations and propositions of law underlying the...
143 S.E.2d 487 (Ga.App. 1965), 41123, Lanier v. Lee