939 F. Supp. 2d 863
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- UNITE HERE Local 1 represents hotel workers at Congress Plaza Hotel and began a strike in June 2003.
- Union expanded in 2008 to deploy delegations targeting Hotel customers and affiliates to press for a settlement.
- Delegations involved in-person visits, leaflets, letters, emails, and backstage coordination with supporters; no sustained forming of picket lines at neutrals.
- Hotel sued alleging unlawful secondary activity under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and sought to characterize conduct as coercive.
- Court grants summary judgment for Union, holding activities were protected First Amendment speech and not coercive secondary conduct under controlling precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Union's delegations violated § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). | Hotel contends delegations coercively pressured neutrals; secondary activity violated statute. | Union asserts non-coercive persuasion; activities fall under protected speech or permissible publicity. | No § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) violation; activities largely protected speech and non-coercive. |
| Whether the conduct, if any, rose to coercion/threat beyond First Amendment protection. | Hotel claims threats/coercion through targeting and harassment of neutrals and decision-makers. | Persuasion, not coercion, and no explicit threats; activities permissible under DeBartolo and Servette line. | No coercive threats proven; conduct does not cross into unlawful coercion. |
| Timeliness of AgLab claims | Alleged cow pie Valentine incident timely under amended complaint. | Claim time-barred; initial dismissal affirmed. | AgLab claims time-barred; granted summary judgment for Union on AgLab. |
| Whether specific neutrals (IHA, NeoCon, C2E2, WordCamp, ATI, etc.) show coercion | Hotel argues various delegations harmed neutrals, causing contract cancellations via coercive pressure. | Evidence shows persuasion, not coercion; many neutrals canceled due to business considerations unrelated to threats. | Summary judgment for Union as to IHA, NeoCon, C2E2, WordCamp, ATI; no coercion proven; actions protected. |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Servette, Inc., 377 U.S. 46 (U.S. 1964) (handbilling permissible; publicizing dispute to neutrals allowed)
- DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (U.S. 1988) (handbilling at shopping mall allowed; coercion requires more than persuasion)
- NLRB v. Retail Store Employees, 447 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1980) (picketing can be coercive; context matters in secondary activities)
- Fruit & Veg. Packers v. NLRB, 377 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1964) (Tree Fruits; distinguishes persuasion from coercion in secondary activity)
- Boxhom’s Big Muskego Gun Club, Inc. v. Electrical Workers Local 4-9L, 798 F.2d 1016 (7th Cir. 1986) (handbilling/picketing scope in pre-DeBartolo context; cautious on broad holdings)
- George v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 185 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 1999) (persuasive letter-writing protected; no unlawful coercion found)
- NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1979) (constitutional avoidance; NLRA limits must respect First Amendment)
- DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (U.S. 1988) (reiterated applicable standard for coercion in secondary activity)