Ahearn v. International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Locals 21 & 4
721 F.3d 1122
9th Cir.2013Background
- Union Locals 21 and 4 picketed and engaged in violent, obstructive, and destructive protest activity at EGT’s grain terminal after EGT hired nonunion workers.
- EGT filed charges with the NLRB; the NLRB sought and obtained a TRO and preliminary injunction under NLRA §§ 10(j) and 10(l).
- The district court found the Union in contempt for violating the TRO/PI and awarded $250,000 (apportioned among NLRB, EGT, BNSF, and several law‑enforcement agencies) and set prospective fines for future violations.
- The district court later imposed an additional $64,764.38 for a subsequent contempt incident.
- On appeal the Union challenged (1) the court’s authority to award compensatory damages to third parties and to EGT given LMRA § 303, (2) sufficiency of proof for damages, (3) whether EGT exceeded the limited role of a charging party, and (4) whether the awards were criminal (entitling the Union to heightened procedures).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union) | Defendant's Argument (NLRB/EGT) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LMRA § 303 is EGT’s exclusive remedy for damages from secondary labor activity | §303 provides the sole remedy; contempt damages improper | §303 allows suits but does not preclude contempt awards to prevailing parties in NLRB actions | §303 is not the exclusive remedy; district court could award compensatory contempt damages to EGT |
| Whether record supports amount of damages awarded to EGT | Insufficient proof; wrong standard of proof; discovery denied | Evidence (affidavits, testimony, photos); court reduced requested amount; award meets standards | Award to EGT supported; amounts upheld (met preponderance/clear‑and‑convincing standards) |
| Whether EGT exceeded the limited role of a charging party under §160(l) by participating in contempt proceedings | EGT improperly acted beyond presenting limited testimony and exhibits; fee claims improper | EGT merely presented evidence of damages and questioned witnesses in support of NLRB petition | EGT’s participation was proper and within §160(l)’s limited role |
| Whether compensatory damages could be awarded to non‑parties (BNSF, police agencies) | Awards to non‑parties are improper; contempt relief is among the parties | Awards are compensatory and deter violations; third‑party awards sometimes permissible | Awards to BNSF and law‑enforcement agencies vacated — non‑parties not entitled to such contempt compensation absent statutory authorization or necessity to enforce injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187 (1949) (civil contempt can coerce compliance and compensate prevailing party)
- Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510 (9th Cir. 1992) (civil contempt dual purposes: coercion and compensation)
- Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911) (civil contempt proceedings are between original parties)
- Bagwell v. Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am., 512 U.S. 821 (1994) (distinguishing civil vs. criminal contempt; compensatory civil sanctions preserved)
- FTC v. Kuykendall, 371 F.3d 745 (10th Cir. 2004) (contempt proceedings may proceed summarily; compensatory sanctions to victims upheld in some statutory contexts)
- EEOC v. Guardian Pools, Inc., 828 F.2d 1507 (11th Cir. 1987) (agency‑represented victims treated as parties for certain purposes)
- Northside Realty Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 605 F.2d 1348 (5th Cir. 1979) (civil contempt sanctions ordinarily compensate prevailing party; limits on awards to non‑parties)
- Operation Rescue Nat’l v. New York, 80 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 1996) (vacating damages awarded to non‑party clinics disrupted by protestors)
- Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857 (3d Cir. 1990) (district court lacked power to award contempt damages to non‑party clinic when award did not directly enforce injunction)
- FTC v. Enforma Natural Prods., Inc., 362 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of proof and procedures in civil contempt contexts)