The California Supreme Court issued its opinion recently in the highly contested, private walkway/labor union picketing case and ruled that labor union picketing activities may not have constitutional protection but they do have statutory protection under the Moscone Act (C.C.P. § 527.3) and Labor Code § 1138.1. The case, Ralphs Grocery Company, v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8 was filed in Sacramento County Superior Court and has gone through the Court of Appeal and oral argument with the California Supreme Court issuing its ruling today.
The California Supreme Court’s ruling and disposition is summarized by the Court as follows:
“A private sidewalk in front of a customer entrance to a retail store in a shopping center is not a public forum for purposes of expressive activity under our state Constitution‘s liberty-of-speech provision as construed in Pruneyard, supra, 23 Cal.3d 899. On the private property of a shopping center, the public forum portion is limited to those areas that have been designed and furnished to permit and encourage the public to congregate and socialize at leisure. California‘s Moscone Act and section 1138.1 afford both substantive and procedural protections to peaceful union picketing on a private sidewalk outside a targeted retail store during a labor dispute, and such union picketing may not be enjoined on the ground that it constitutes a trespass. The Moscone Act and section 1138.1 do not violate the federal Constitution‘s free speech or equal protection guarantees on the ground that they give speech regarding a labor dispute greater protection than speech on other subjects.”
The Moscone Act in pertinent part, states that certain activities undertaken during labor disputes are legal and cannot be enjoined or prohibited, including peaceful picketing, peaceful assembly and publicizing a labor dispute. Labor code § 1138.1 in pertinent part prohibits a court from issuing an injunction during a labor dispute unless the court finds (1) unlawful acts have been and will be committed unless restrained; (2) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainant‘s property will follow; (3) That as to each item of relief granted greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief; (4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at law; and (5) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant‘s property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.
The Court of Appeal ruled that these laws violated the federal Constitution’s general prohibition on content-based speech regulation but the California Supreme Court disagreed and did not find conflict with the Constitution, in that speech regarding a labor dispute is not afforded greater protection than speech on other grounds. The Moscone Act and Labor Code § 1138.1 were upheld and labor unions remain protected to facilitate pickets on a private sidewalk in front of a customer entrance to a retail store.