San Antonio Community Hospital v. Southern California District Council of Carpenters

ORDER

The Opinion filed June 4, 1997, slip op. 6439, is hereby WITHDRAWN.

OPINION

Southern California District Council of Carpenters (“the Union”) appeals the district court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction restricting the manner in which the Union had displayed a banner purporting to publicize its labor dispute with Best Interiors, a subcontractor engaged in a construction project at San Antonio Community Hospital (“the Hospital”). The district court conclud *1233 ed that the Hospital had met the strict requirements for a preliminary injunction set forth in the Norris-LaGuardia Act (“NLA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 101-115 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a). We affirm.

I. FACTS

The Union is currently engaged in an ongoing labor dispute with Best Interiors, a construction company, over Best Interiors’ failure to pay its employees prevailing wages and benefits. Best Interiors is a subcontractor in an expansion project at the Hospital. There is no contract between Best Interiors and the Hospital. The Union concedes that it does not now have, and has never had, a labor dispute with the Hospital.

On June 21, 1996, the Union began displaying a banner near the Hospital’s…

dissenting.

Those who would enjoin speech concerning a matter of public interest must bear a heavy burden, see Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 , 91 S.Ct. 1575, 1577-78 , 29 L.Ed.2d 1 (1971) (“heavy presumption” of unconstitutionality), more so if the speech in question concerns a labor dispute. See Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 104 (e) (prohibiting injunctions of labor speech unless “involving fraud or violence”); Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Panama S.S. Co., 362 U.S. 365, 369 , 80 S.Ct. 779, 783 , 4 L.Ed.2d 797 (1960) (“[The NLA’s] language is broad because Congress was intent upon taking the federal courts out of the labor injunction business____’’j. 1 The Hospital here did not carry its burden of showing it will suffer a “substantial and irreparable injury.” See 29 U.S.C. § 107 (b). It’s implausible to believe that anyone choosing what hospital to patronize, or whether to donate money, would make such a weighty decision on the basis of a fleeting glance at a picket sign during a drive-by. People ain’t that dumb; they would investigate and discover the truth. 2 There is no proof that a single *1240 person was deterred by the sign from using the…