May 23, 2019

Colorado Court of Appeals: Permanent Injunction Barring Trespass Not Preempted by NLRA

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union on Thursday, May 5, 2016.

Unions—Trespass—Permanent Injunction—National Labor Relations Act—Preemption—Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and Organization United for Respect at Walmart (collectively, unions) engaged in demonstrations at Walmart stores at several locations in Colorado. In response, Walmart mailed a letter to UFCW’s general counsel asking him to direct the unions to immediately cease protesting on Walmart’s property. When the activities continued, Walmart filed an unfair labor practice charge (labor charge) with the National Labor Relations Board (Board), claiming that the unions violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This charge was later dismissed by Walmart. However, Walmart then filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief from trespass in district court, requesting a permanent injunction enjoining the unions from engaging in certain types of activities on Walmart’s property. The unions filed a motion to dismiss under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), claiming the NLRA preemption deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion and then granted Walmart’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, the unions argued that the district court erred in denying their motion to dismiss because Walmart’s lawsuit is preempted by the NLRA. The federal issue in Walmart’s labor charge is unrelated to the trespass issue in Walmart’s state claim, and therefore the controversies are not identical. The NLRA does not arguably prohibit, and thus does not preempt, Walmart’s state claim to enjoin the unions from trespassing on its premises.

The unions also argued that, assuming the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over their activities, it applied the incorrect legal standard and erred by granting Walmart’s motion for summary judgment and permanently enjoining the unions from trespassing at Walmart-owned stores that are subject to Walmart’s nonexclusive easements over the property. The unions contended that because the properties contain nonexclusive easements, Walmart does not have exclusive possession of them and the district court should have required Walmart to show that the unions’ activity unreasonably interfered with Walmart’s use and enjoyment of the property. The unions do not dispute that Walmart possesses and has title to the property in question. Thus, to sustain its trespass claim, Walmart only had to prove that the unions entered its property without its permission. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the injunction.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Threat to Hire Permanent Replacements Not Enough to Invalidate Entire Lockout

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Teamsters Local Union No. 455 v. National Labor Relations Board on Wednesday, August 27, 2014.

Harborlite, Inc. locked out union members during a collective bargaining dispute. Harborlite threatened to hire permanent workers to replace the locked out union members, and the Teamsters brought a claim with the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB ordered Harborlite not to make future threats of termination and to post a notice to that effect. Teamsters appealed, alleging that the NLRB should have held the entire lockout unlawful and awarded back pay.

The Tenth Circuit first addressed the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S.Ct. 2550 (2014), and found it had jurisdiction, since the NLRB appointment at issue was made during a Senate recess that was longer than the period specified as problematic by the Court.

Turning to the merits of the appeal, the Tenth Circuit could not support the Teamsters’ contention that the lockout became unlawful when Harborlite threatened to hire permanent replacements. The threat did not cause the Teamsters to change their position, and it was not acted upon. A mere threat and nothing more was not enough to convert an otherwise legal lockout to an illegal one. The petition to review was denied.