Opinion ID: 2998640
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lawful Primary Picketing

Text: Where a union has a grievance with the terms and conditions of employment of a particular employer, the primary employer, it must focus its picketing activity on that employer. Mautz & Oren, 882 F.2d at 1121. The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Local 150 only if General Drilling presented no probative evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Local 150’s activities violated section 158(b)(4). See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Because Local 150 was involved in a primary labor dispute with General Drilling, there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the primary nature of Local 150’s conduct against General Drilling. All of the evidence presented to the district court supported Local 150’s assertion that it picketed General No. 05-1389 17 Drilling both for recognition and for area wages. Troglio succinctly stated the grounds for the dispute in his deposition testimony: Q. So you were picketing, trying to get Mr. Boatman to sign a collective bargaining agreement? A. And picketing for area standards. In their testimony, General Drilling officials corroborated these two asserted motivations for picketing. Boatman, Diehr, and Keil all met with Troglio in 1996 to discuss Troglio’s concerns about General Drilling. Both Boatman and Diehr confirmed that even at that early date Troglio was pressuring General Drilling for recognition on behalf of Local 150. Describing the attitude that Troglio took at the 1996 meeting, Boatman stated, “It was just, ‘Join or leave.’” Diehr elaborated on her understanding of Troglio’s intentions: Q Did he ever say he wanted you to sign a collective bargaining agreement? A He wanted us to either be Union or be out. That was it.