Carpet Service International, Inc. v. Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters
698 F.3d 394
7th Cir.2012Background
- CSI sued Regional Council and Local 13 under LMRA § accusations; CSI and Molfese pursued state claims against union organizer Ryan.
- Job site was under Local 13’s jurisdiction; Sunrise Construction Group was neutral employer; CSI’s non-union workers operated at a Local 13 site.
- Picketing began July 2008 led by Ryan; picketers wore reversible vests identifying the dispute against CSI.
- Ferraro, the secondary employer’s site manager, was pressured by Ryan and Sexton to “get rid of them,” leading to contract cancellations for CSI on other jobs.
- District court found no unlawful activity by the unions and rejected damages; CSI and Molfese appealed.
- Court reviews findings de novo on law and for clear error on facts; credibility determinations are upheld if not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Local 13 and Regional Council violated LMRA §158(b)(4)(ii). | CSI argues unlawful secondary activity. | Defendants argue Moore Dry Dock standards show lawful primary activity. | Yes, primary activity lawful; no secondary violation established. |
| Whether damages were warranted for CSI. | CSI sought substantial damages for lost contracts and profits. | District court found damages speculative and unrecoverable. | Damages affirmed as unavailable due to no unlawful conduct proven. |
| Whether Molfese’s assault/IIED claims were credible. | Molfese testified to injury and fear from a union official. | District court found his testimony unreliable and inconsistent. | Claims rejected on credibility; affirmed absence of clear error. |
Key Cases Cited
- BE&K Constr. Co. v. Will & Grundy Counties Bldg. Trades Council, 156 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 1998) (presumed lawful primary picketing when criteria met under Moore Dry Dock)
- Tri-Gen Inc. v. Intl. Union of Operating Engr’s, Local 150, AFL-CIO, 433 F.3d 1024 (7th Cir. 2006) (guides when primary vs secondary activity at shared site)
- Moore Dry Dock Co., 92 N.L.R.B. 547 (NLRB 1950) (Moore Dry Dock standards for lawful primary activity)
- Mautz & Oren, Inc. v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, & Helpers Union, Local No. 279, 882 F.2d 1117 (7th Cir. 1989) (context for pressure tactics and unlawful secondary activity)
- Johnson v. West, 218 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2000) (standard for reviewing district court findings of fact)