Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Lockyer

Opinion by Judge BEEZER; Dissent by Judge FISHER.

The National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., extends to employees the opportunity to render a free and informed choice about union representation. In doing so, the Act allows for robust debate of union representation issues by employers and employees alike. The question presented is whether California Assembly Bill 1889, codified at Cal. Govt.Code §§ 16645-49, (“AB 1889” or “the statute”), which bars employers from spending “state funds” on union-related speech, is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.

As we explain, the California statute chills employers from exercising their free speech rights that are explicitly protected by Congress under the National Labor Relations Act. In doing so, the statute undermines the delicate balance established by Congress as between labor unions and employers. In addition, the California statute interferes with the National Labor Relations Act’s extension of exclusive jurisdiction to the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) for the adoption and enforcement of representation election rules.

Appellants California and the AFL-CIO vigorously defend the…

dissenting:

This case requires us to balance two important governmental interests: the ability of states to control the use of their own funds, and the federal government’s national labor policy. The majority’s critical error is in failing to recognize our responsibility to honor both of these interests to the extent possible — instead, it gives short shrift to California’s sovereign *995 ty interests through an overbroad application of federal labor preemption doctrine that conflicts with both our past precedent and that of the Supreme Court. The majority’s preemption analysis subverts important federalism principles, and therefore I must respectfully dissent.

I agree with many — although not all — of the majority’s characterizations of the complex labor preemption doctrine upon which this case turns. My main difference is in how I answer the question upon which the fate of AB 1889 turns: if a state allows employers to spend their own funds, in whatever manner they please, to advocate for or against unionization, does national labor preemption doctrine require the full preemption of a restriction on the use by employers of state funds alone for such purposes? I think not. As…

Volume 1 of

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES; CALIFORNIA

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE;

EMPLOYERS GROUP; CALIFORNIA

HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION;

CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS AND

TECHNOLOGY ASSN.; CALIFORNIA

ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH FACILITIES;

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF HOME

& SERVICES FOR THE AGING; BETTEC

CORPORATION; MARKSHERM

CORPORATION; ZILACO INC., ZILACO;

DEL RIO HEALTHCARE, INC.; No. 03-55166 BEVERLY HEALTH & REHABILITATION  D.C. No. SERVICES, INC. dba Beverly Manor CV-02-00377-GLT Costa Mesa; INTERNEXT GROUP, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF

LABOR AND CONGRESS OF

INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

AFL-CIO & WHOLESALE DELIVERY

DRIVERS; CALIFORNIA LABOR

FEDERATION, AFL-CIO,

Intervenors-Appellants, v. 

12167 12168 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE v. LOCKYER

BILL LOCKYER, Attorney General,  in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of California;

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES;

FRANK G. VANACORE, as the Chief of the Audit Review and Analysis Section of the California  Department of…