Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 8
55 Cal. 4th 1083
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Ralphs owns a private supermarket in College Square with a single customer entrance and a 15-foot walkway around it leading to a driving lane.
- Union picketed the store entrance area five days a week for eight hours, carrying signs and handing out flyers, without blocking access.
- Ralphs issued speech regulations prohibiting near-entrance speech within 20 feet and other speech restrictions; union did not comply.
- Trial court denied TRO; granted evidentiary hearing for injunction under section 1138.1; court later denied preliminary injunction.
- Court of Appeal held the entrance walkway was not a public forum under the California Constitution, and that Moscone Act and §1138.1 violated federal First/Equal Protection; this Court granted review.
- This opinion reverses the Court of Appeal, upholds that the walkway is not a public forum, but that Moscone Act and §1138.1 do not violate the federal Constitution and may protect labor picketing on private property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the private walkway is a public forum under the state Constitution | Ralphs argues it is not a public forum, allowing speech restrictions | Union contends it is a public or quasi-public forum requiring accommodation | Not a public forum under the state Constitution |
| Whether Moscone Act and §1138.1 violate the First/Fourteenth Amendments | Ralphs contends content-based protection favoring labor speech violates federal Constitution | State statutes do not regulate speech content and are justified by labor-relations policy | They do not violate the federal Constitution; they are constitutionally permissible in this private-property context |
| Scope of Moscone Act to labor picketing on private property | Sears framework should bar injunctions for peaceful labor picketing on private walkways outside stores | Statutory text and existing law support protection of labor speech while limiting interference with business | Moscone Act allows peaceful labor picketing on private walkways and bars injunctive relief for such conduct when not unlawful under the statute |
| Role of fashion valley/public forum precedents in applying Moscone Act | Court should apply public forum principles to regulate speech in private property | Public forum analysis does not control on private property; statutory scheme governs | Private walkway not a public forum; statute applied within its own framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal.3d 899 (Cal. 1979) (state public forum under pruneyard theory; private shopping center speech protections)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County Dist. Council of Carpenters, 25 Cal.3d 317 (Cal. 1979) ( Moscone Act construed to protect lawful labor activity on private property)
- Schwartz-Torrance Investment Corp. v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers' Union, 61 Cal.2d 766 (Cal. 1964) (labor speech on private property; balancing interests of owner and union)
- In re Lane, 71 Cal.2d 872 (Cal. 1969) (labor picketing on private sidewalk in front of store; first amendments considerations)
- Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1976) (private property not a federal public forum for First Amendment)
- Waremart Foods v. NLRB, 354 F.3d 870 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (DC Circuit: Moscone Act content-based protections raise First Amendment concerns when extended to private parking)
- Fashion Valley Mall v. National Labor Relations Board, 42 Cal.4th 850 (Cal. 2007) (public forum analysis for shopping centers; malls' common areas as public forums)
- NLRB v. Retail Store Employees, 447 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1980) (secondary picketing and balancing in NLRA context)