Opinion ID: 539210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Scope of the District Court's Injunction

Text: 36 The district court's injunction prohibits the Union from attempting to coerce, restrain, or threaten the Puget Sound Chapter, the nonunion firms, or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce with the object of forcing compliance with the CIR's arbitration award. The Union claims that this injunction is overbroad because it enjoins conduct which has not occurred or been threatened. We agree. 37 A court must limit the conduct it enjoins to that which is found to have been pursued [or] persuasively to be related to the proven unlawful conduct. NLRB v. Express Publishing Co., 312 U.S. 426, 433, 61 S.Ct. 693, 698, 85 L.Ed. 930 (1941). Using this standard, the Supreme Court in Communications Workers v. NLRB, 362 U.S. 479, 80 S.Ct. 838, 4 L.Ed.2d 896 (1960), struck part of an NLRB order requiring a union to refrain from coercing employees of any other employer where the NLRB had found that the union had coerced only the employees of the named employer. 38 In this case, the General Counsel has accused the Union only of filing an improper grievance against the Chapter and pursuing that grievance in federal court. There is no evidence before the court that the Union engaged in any other conduct aimed at coercing compliance with its interpretation of the Agreement by the Chapter or by any other party. Thus, the conduct enjoined by the district court goes beyond that persuasively related to the Union's efforts to enforce the CIR's arbitration award through the grievance procedure. Consequently, we modify the injunction by deleting that part that refers to nonunion firms, or any other person engaged in commerce or an industry affecting commerce. 39 INJUNCTION AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. 40 STAY AFFIRMED.