Watch List Webinar -- Ralphs Grocery Co. v. UFCWU Local 8: Statutory Picketing Rights and the First Amendment

The State Bar of California Labor and Employment Law Section presents our first webinar from The Watch List:

Ralphs Grocery Co. v. UFCWU Local 8:

Statutory Picketing Rights and the First Amendment

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 at 12 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. Pacific Time

1.0 Total Participatory MCLE Credits (No Ethics)

On December 27, the California Supreme Court in Ralphs Grocery Co. v. UFCWU Local 8 held that two statutory provisions – Code of Civil Procedure section 527.3 (the Moscone Act) and Labor Code section 1138.1 (section 1138.1) – protect a labor union’s right to picket on private property in front of a grocery store, even though that property does not constitute a public forum under the California Constitution’s liberty of speech provision. The Court further held that the Moscone Act and section 1138.1, which are components of a state statutory system for regulating labor relations and which are modeled on federal law do not run afoul of the federal constitutional prohibition on content discrimination in speech regulations. 

Speakers: 

Paul L. More (counsel for UFCWU, argued before Supreme Court) 

William J. Emanuel (counsel for amici Employers Group, et al.)

Moderator:   

Steven G. Pearl, ADR Services, Inc. 

Register here or go to www.calbar.org/online-cle and select a subject area.  All Watch List Webinars will be available in our on-line education catalog (listed in alphabetical order) soon after they are aired: http://calbar.inreachce.com. All Watch List Webinars will begin with the words: THE WATCH LIST. 

The Watch List is a series of webinars on the latest cases of interest to California employment attorneys. We will present the Watch List webinars as soon as possible after decisions are published, and our speakers frequently will be the attorneys who argued in the reviewing court. The Watch List webinars will bring you the most up-to-date information from the leading attorneys in California and the nation. 

Ralphs Grocery v. UFCWU: Cal. Supreme Court Holds That Union Has Statutory Right to Picket in Front of Market

In Ralphs Grocery Company v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8 (12/27/12) --- Cal.4th ---, the California Supreme Court has ruled on a labor union's constitutional and statutory rights to picket in front of a grocery market's sole entrance. The opinion, by Justice Kennard with Cantil-Sakauye, Baxter, Werdegar, Corrigan, and Liu joining, gives a good summary of the proceedings below and the holdings: 

A supermarket owner sought a court injunction to prevent a labor union from picketing on the privately owned walkway in front of the only customer entrance to its store. In response, the union argued that two statutory provisions — Code of Civil Procedure section 527.3 (the Moscone Act) and Labor Code section 1138.1 (section 1138.1) — prohibited issuance of an injunction under these circumstances. The trial court denied relief, ruling that the supermarket owner had failed to satisfy section 1138.1‘s requirements for obtaining an injunction against labor picketing.  

The Court of Appeal reversed. It held that the walkway fronting the supermarket's entrance was not a public forum under the California Constitution's provision protecting liberty of speech (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2, subd. (a)), and therefore the store owner could regulate speech in that area. It further held that both the Moscone Act and section 1138.1, because they give speech regarding a labor dispute greater protection than speech on other subjects, violate the free speech guarantee of the federal Constitution‘s First Amendment and the equal protection guarantee of the federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. This court granted the union's petition for review.

We agree with the Court of Appeal that the supermarket's privately owned entrance area is not a public forum under the California Constitution's liberty of speech provision. For this reason, a union's picketing activities in such a location do not have state constitutional protection. Those picketing activities do have statutory protection, however, under the Moscone Act and section 1138.1. We do not agree with the Court of Appeal that the Moscone Act and section 1138.1, which are components of a state statutory system for regulating labor relations, and which are modeled on federal law, run afoul of the federal constitutional prohibition on content discrimination in speech regulations. On this basis, we reverse the Court of Appeal's judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings.

Slip op. at 1-2. The opinion is available here.  

I am organizing a series of webinars on important recent decisions for the The State Bar of California's Labor and Employment Law Section.  We will present a webinar on Ralphs Grocery within the next two weeks or so.  I am very pleased that Justice Miriam Vogel and Paul More, who argued the case for Ralphs and the Union, respectively, have agreed to speak.  Please stay tuned for more information. 

Ralphs Grocery v. UFCWU Local 8: California Supreme Court to Address First and Fourteenth Amendment Issues in Picketing Case

I am updating my Watch List with a number of new cases, and this is the first.

In Ralphs Grocery v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8 (Case No. S185544) the California Supreme Court will address the following issues:

(1) Did the Court of Appeal err in concluding that the parking area and walkway in front of the entrance to plaintiff's retail store, which is part of a larger shopping center, do not constitute a public forum under Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899 and its progeny?

(2) Do the Moscone Act (Code Civ. Proc. section 527.3) and Labor Code section 1138.1, which limit the availability of injunctive relief in labor disputes, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution because they afford preferential treatment to speech concerning labor disputes over speech about other issues? 

The case is fully briefed and awaiting oral argument. The Court's web page for it is here.