Opinion ID: 741822
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fraud and Unlawful Acts

Text: 17 The Union disputes the district court's finding that the language contained on the banner is fraudulent and therefore constitutes an unlawful act. The Union argues that the term rat has deep historical meaning in the context of labor disputes and should not be subject to injunction. The Union contends that it was merely publicizing the facts of its labor dispute and its opinion that Best Interiors was a rat contractor for failing to pay its workers the prevailing wage. The district court concluded, however, that the manner in which the term rat was used on the banner was deceptive and misled all persons exposed to the banner into believing that the banner is stating that plaintiff Hospital has a rodent problem. 18 The Union is correct that the NLA allows unions a great deal of latitude in their choice of language in the context of a labor dispute. The Supreme Court has noted that labor and management often speak bluntly and recklessly, embellishing their respective positions with imprecatory language. Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, 383 U.S. 53, 58, 86 S.Ct. 657, 661, 15 L.Ed.2d 582 (1966) (citation omitted). The Court has also noted that federal law gives a union license to use intemperate, abusive, or insulting language without fear of restraint or penalty if it believes such rhetoric to be an effective means to make its point. Old Dominion Branch No. 496, Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 283, 94 S.Ct. 2770, 2781, 41 L.Ed.2d 745 (1974). The license to use inflammatory rhetoric during a labor dispute, however, is not unbridled under the NLA. Where, as here, a union's fraudulent language is directed at a secondary entity with which it has no labor dispute at all, the speech cannot be protected as an exchange of imprecatory language between labor and management, and the NLA grants jurisdiction to a district court to issue an injunction prohibiting the unlawful activity. 19 The Union is also correct that the term rat has historical usage in the context of labor disputes, especially as those disputes involve the printing industry. Most dictionaries, in defining rat, include an entry for an employer who fails to pay the prevailing wage. However, the district court did not prohibit the Union from using the term rat, but, rather, enjoined the manner in which it was used in this case because, in context, the Union's use of the term was fraudulent. 20 The cases cited by the Union do not conflict with this conclusion. In Beverly Hills Foodland, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, 840 F.Supp. 697 (E.D.Mo.1993), aff'd, 39 F.3d 191 (8th Cir.1994), the district court ruled that a handbill distributed by the union that identified the grocery store with which the union had a labor dispute as a rat was protected by the federal labor laws because this Court cannot construe the word to be a representation of fact. No one could read the handbill and believe that the owner/manager of Foodland was actually a rodent animal. Id. at 705. Because the handbill was not deceptive, the union's members were entitled to distribute it to the public. 21 In BE&K Constr. Co. v. NLRB, 23 F.3d 1459 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1076, 115 S.Ct. 721, 130 L.Ed.2d 627 (1995), the court noted that it was not improper for a trade union publication to urge solidarity against BE & K and describe the company as a  'rat' contractor. Id. at 1463. In that context, the use of the term rat to describe the management side of the labor dispute was likewise not deceptive or designed to mislead members of the general public. No reasonable reader would be misled by the use of the term rat in these circumstances. 22 The problem with the Union's use of the term rats in this case was not the mere use of the term, but the manner in which it was used. The district court found a high probability that members of the public would be and actually were deceived by the use of the term rats in the Union's banner. In the most prominent lettering, the banner reads: THIS MEDICAL FACILITY IS FULL OF RATS. At no place in that phrase or in the entire banner does the Union identify Best Interiors as the rat contractor. The term rats is used in the plural and is directed at the Hospital, not the contractor with whom the Union has the labor dispute. The allegedly explanatory language contained on the banner is in letters less than half the size of the first statement and is located at the bottom of the banner just above the feet of the individuals holding it. The words Best Int. identifying the disputed contractor are smaller still, handwritten, and, as a result, difficult to read at best by drivers passing by on San Bernardino Road. 2 The cases cited by the Union to support the historical usage of the term rat to describe unfair employers do not undercut the district court's conclusion that the manner in which that term was used in the chosen context was deceptive and misled members of the general public into believing that the Hospital suffered from a sanitation problem. 23 We agree that [e]xpressions of opinion, though inaccurate and even mis-representative in character, obviously cannot be permitted to be made the basis ordinarily for injunctive process in a labor dispute. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers v. Pauly Jail Bldg. Co., 118 F.2d 615, 616 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 639, 62 S.Ct. 75, 86 L.Ed. 513 (1941). We also agree that [a]ccusations of unfairness against an employer normally will fall within this category of opinion. Id. In this case, however, the phrase THIS MEDICAL FACILITY IS FULL OF RATS cannot be construed as an opinion. It certainly is designed to grab the reader's attention, but only because it purports to be an expression of fact 3 which, if true, would deter reasonable people from seeking medical care at the Hospital. As an expression of fact, it falls within the congressional purpose behind the NLA 24 to leave the federal courts free to enjoin those permeative acts, falling within the term fraud or violence, which an unsluggish public conscience and a healthy social order cannot soundly tolerate, even at the risk of thereby enabling one of the parties to tip the scales of the fundamental dispute. Id. at 617. 4 25 This case is similar to Mercy Health Servs. v. 1199 Health and Human Serv. Employees Union, 888 F.Supp. 828 (W.D.Mich.1995), where the court concluded that certain television commercials were defamatory because they attempt to frighten Michigan residents into believing that Mercy Health Services' hospitals in Michigan cannot deliver adequate care and comfort because they are not adequately staffed with trained, experienced nurses available to answer patients' calls. Id. at 835. The Union in this case concedes that it does not now and never has believed that the Hospital suffers from rodent infestation. The Union's banner, though, can be read as an attempt to frighten potential patients into believing that the Hospital is an unsanitary facility. The district court could properly conclude on this record that the Union's banner was fraudulent because, as the California Supreme Court has held, [t]here can be no doubt that untruthful picketing is unlawful picketing. Magill Bros., Inc. v. Building Serv. Employees' Int'l Union, 20 Cal.2d 506, 508, 127 P.2d 542 (Cal.1942). The NLA does not protect the Union's fraudulent speech here. 5 26