Overstreet

Overstreet v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local Union No. 1506

Good Law
409 F.3d 1199
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 8, 200503-56135California23,167 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. Background

For several years, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union Number 1506 (“the Car- penters”) have had a labor dispute with three contracting com- panies — 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 construc- tion projects in the Phoenix, Los Angeles, and San Diego met- ropolitan 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 1 These companies include retailers and general contractors who hired Brady, Precision, or E&K on various construction projects. The majority of these companies are…

Dissenting Opinion

Kleinfeld, J.

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

The NLRB regional director has a sufficient likelihood of prevailing on the “fraudulent speech” claim, under our decision in San Antonio Community Hospital v. Southern California District Council of Carpenters, 1 so that he should have been granted a preliminary injunction based on the Administrative Law Judge’s findings and decision.

The record has photographs of the banners at issue. A typical one says “LABOR DISPUTE” twice, and in huge red letters, “SHAME ON THE WESTIN BONAVENTURE.” Anthony’s Fish Grotto got its own special banner, which had “LABOR DISPUTE” printed twice, and then the individualized message “DON’T EAT AT ANTHONY’S FISH GROTTO.”

Many people, because of their sympathies or their obligations as union members, will not patronize firms whose employees are engaged in disputes over union recognition or terms of employment. Such individuals, seeing the “SHAME ON THE WESTIN BONAVENTURE” banner, for example, would be inclined to schedule conventions, dinners, weddings and other events at a different hotel. They would also likely avoid staying at the Westin. According to deposition evidence in the record, one of the hotels subjected…

Lead Opinion

Berzon, J.

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “the Board”) Regional Director, Cornele Overstreet, seeks to enjoin members of a building trades union from holding aloft .large banners announcing a “labor dispute.” The banners are located so that they are visible to customers of businesses that deal with certain contractors who do not have union contracts. While the banners are displayed, other union members distribute handbills that explain the “labor dispute.” The questions before us involve interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act (“the NLRA” or “the Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., set against the backdrop of First Amendment concerns raised by the request to enjoin peaceful speech activity. We conclude that the district court correctly declined to issue the injunction.

I. Background

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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.