836 F. Supp. 2d 1327
N.D. Ga.2011Background
- The Southeastern Carpenters Regional Council (Union) conducted an area standards campaign in Atlanta targeting contractors, including Circle Group, which disagreed with the Union's area standards definitions and compliance.
- Circle Group is a Georgia interior construction contractor accused by the Union of failing to meet area standards, based on investigations and pay stub reviews conducted by the Union.
- The Union issued Notice Letters to employers and end users, directing managerial discretion to withhold Circle Group work until Circle met area standards, and attached sample handbills, banners, and demonstration instructions.
- Union activities included bannering, handbilling, and picketing at numerous projects (Hyatt Hotel, Marriott Marquis, GWCC, Omni, Georgia State, Terminus 100, Berry College, Lenbrook Square, St. Regis, and others), with sometimes disruptive results on nearby businesses and buildings.
- Circle Group challenges whether demonstrations occurred on public rights of way and contends that the Union’s conduct can be coercive or unlawful under Moore Dry Dock/Superior Derrick standards for common situs picketing.
- Procedurally, Circle Group’s and Union’s motions for summary judgment and related discovery motions were adjudicated; the court denied some requests, granted others, and reserved trial on key 8(b) claims, noting statutes of limitations for certain damages actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) prohibits the Union's conduct | Circle Group argues Union threats/coercion aimed to force Circle to cease doing business. | Union contends its conduct, while targeting secondary parties, did not unlawfully coerce when viewed in context and under Moore Dry Dock/Superior Derrick standards. | Genuine facts remain; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Whether 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) prohibits a recognitional object | Circle Group contends the Union had a recognitional objective and pretext for area standards targeting Circle. | Union asserts its objective was area standards with reasonable inquiry; no unlawful recognitional purpose proven. | Disputed facts preclude summary judgment on 8(b)(4)(ii)(A). |
| Whether the publicity proviso allows non-picketing handbilling/bannering | Circle Group argues handbilling/bannering aimed at truthfully advising the public; bans on secondary effects should apply to these methods. | Union contends handbilling/bannering at neutral sites can be lawful if not involving coercive elements. | Issues of fact regarding coercive effects and total conduct survive summary judgment. |
| Whether Moore Dry Dock/Superior Derrick criteria were satisfied or violated | Circle Group asserts improper secondary aims and failure to meet Moore Dry Dock/Superior Derrick safeguards. | Union argues these criteria require deeper inquiry; some conduct may be primary or permissible common situs picketing. | Disputed facts; jury must determine primary vs. secondary objective and legality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentov v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n Local 15, 418 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2005) (dual-object analysis; secondary boycott standards)
- DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (S. Ct. 1988) (publicity/protest limits; First Amendment protection for peaceful handbilling)
- Moore Dry Dock v. NLRB, 92 NLRB 547 (NLRB 1950) (criteria for primary vs. secondary picketing in common situs cases)
- Superior Derrick Corp. v. NLRB, 273 F.2d 891 (5th Cir. 1960) (deeper inquiry into union purpose for Moore Dry Dock compliance)
- NLRB v. Denver Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 341 U.S. 689 (Supreme Court 1951) (dual objectives in labor disputes; primary vs. secondary pressures)
- Lane Crane Serv., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union No. 177, 704 F.2d 550 (11th Cir. 1983) (informational picketing; distinguishing permissible activity from prohibited coercion)