Mulhall v. UNITE HERE LOCAL 355, 667 F.3d 1211

Mardi Gras Gaming and Unite Here Local 355 signed a 2004 agreement granting union access to non-public premises, a staff list, and neutrality during organizing.
In return, Unite pledged to support a ballot initiative on casino gaming with over $100,000 spent to campaign.
If Unite were recognized, it would refrain from picketing, boycotts, strikes, or other economic activity against Mardi Gras.
Mulhall, a Mardi Gras employee opposed to unionization, sued claiming the agreement violated LMRA § 302 by providing organizing assistance as a thing of value.
The district court dismissed, holding that organizing assistance could not be a thing of value; on appeal, the panel had previously noted Mulhall adequately alleged the organizing assistance was valuable to Unite.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is organizing assistance a thing of value under § 302?	Mulhall: organizing assistance can be a thing of value and thus violates § 302.	Mardi Gras/Unite: it is not a thing of value and thus not a § 302 violation.	Yes; organizing assistance can be a thing of value and may violate § 302.
Can a neutrality/cooperation agreement be a § 302 violation even if there is no monetary value?	Mulhall contends § 302 can reach intangible benefits when used improperly.	Defendants argue such agreements may be innocuous and not payments, loans, or deliveries.	Not categorically exempt; can be illegal if used as payment in a scheme to corrupt or extort.
Does Mulhall state a claim given the alleged value and proposed facts?	Mulhall alleged the value is evidenced by Unite's $100k campaign expenditure.	The complaint lacks adequate factual allegations of improper intent or use of concessions as payment.	Mulhall states a claim; remand to determine reason for accord.

Arroyo v. United States, 359 U.S. 419 (1959) (purpose of § 302 is to protect integrity of collective bargaining)
United States v. Nilsen, 967 F.2d 539 (11th Cir.1992) (thing of value includes intangible benefits; value not limited to money)
Turner v. Local Union No. 302, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 604 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir.1979) (dominant purpose of § 302; prevents bribery/extortion)
Adcock v. Freightliner LLC, 550 F.3d 369 (4th Cir.2008) (neutrality/assistance agreements not automatically § 302 violations)
Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Union, Local 57 v. Sage Hospitality Res., LLC, 390 F.3d 206 (3d Cir.2004) (neutrality agreements not necessarily prohibited under § 302)
United States v. Roth, 333 F.2d 450 (2d Cir.1964) (value depends on desire to have the thing and circumstances)
United States v. Douglas, 634 F.3d 852 (6th Cir.2011) (court recognized non-monetary things of value as § 302 payments)
Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355, 618 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir.2010) (prior holding that organizing assistance is valuable to a union)