Turner Construction v. Plumbers Local 690
130 A.3d 47
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Turner managed CHOP construction and used a nonunion subcontractor (Worth); Plumbers Local 690 began picketing April 21, 2014 and a stipulated special injunction (April 22) limited picketing, banned trespass/blocking, required efforts to prevent others acting "in concert," and set distance/number limits.
- Picketing continued through May–June involving other trade locals; compliance with April order was uneven and violations occurred.
- On July 9, 2014 a coordinated rally (up to 181 people) blocked both construction gates for ~6 hours, impeding deliveries, contractors, and access; Turner sought and obtained a July 18 preliminary injunction extending and tightening the April terms to additional unions.
- Appellants (several unions and officers) appealed, arguing (inter alia) Turner failed to show they seized property under the Labor Anti‑Injunction Act (LAIA), the court should have applied §206i’s strict findings, the injunction is overbroad, and some defendants were improperly enjoined.
- The Superior Court upheld that a "seizure" occurred under §206d(d) (mass picketing denying ingress/egress), affirmed most of the injunction, but found the aggregate five‑picket limit overly restrictive and remanded to tailor that numeric restriction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence showed a seizure under §206d(d) | Turner: mass picketing blocked ingress/egress, impeding work and deliveries, supporting §206d(d) exception to LAIA | Unions: Turner failed to prove specific union or officers seized the site; evidence was insufficient | Court: Evidence (testimony, photos/video) supported finding of seizure; §206d(d) applies — LAIA’s restrictive provisions do not block injunctive relief |
| Whether §206i findings were required / injunction procedurally deficient | Unions: Because the injunction text resembled §206i factors, strict §206i hearing/findings required; July order lacked §206d citation | Turner: From the outset invoked §206d, presented evidence of seizure, and trial court expressly found seizure; §206i not applicable | Court: Overnite precedent not controlling; record shows §206d was invoked and proven; §206i’s strict findings not required when §206d applies |
| Overbreadth — distance and numeric limits on picketing | Unions: Order bars protected speech, (1) broadly restricts unions, (2) prevents neutral monitoring at gate, (3) five‑person total limit unreasonably suppresses speech | Turner: Restrictions narrowly tailored to prevent repeat seizures while allowing visible picketing offsite; needed to prevent gate blockades | Court: Distance restrictions (25 ft from gates; 8 ft from curb) are narrowly tailored and upheld; aggregate five‑picket cap is not the narrowest means and unreasonably burdens speech — remanded to craft a less restrictive numeric limit |
| Inclusion of Plumbers Local 690 and certain officers | Unions: Turner failed to show Local 690 (or specific officers) participated in July 9 blockade; collective guilt insufficient | Turner: Local 690 initiated dispute, stipulated to April injunction including persons acting "in concert," and failed to use reasonable efforts to prevent others’ violations — liable for aiding/abetting | Court: Although direct identification of Local 690 members at July rally was lacking, record supported inference of inter‑trade coordination and that Local 690 failed to prevent/abet violations; inclusion affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Summit Towne Centre, Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc., 828 A.2d 995 (Pa. 2003) (standard of appellate review for preliminary injunction: abuse of discretion)
- Giant Eagle Markets Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 23, 652 A.2d 1286 (Pa. 1995) (mass picketing that denies access constitutes a seizure under §206d)
- Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers of Am., 46 A.2d 16 (Pa. 1946) (control of entrances equates to control/seizure of plant; irreparable business interruption supports injunction)
- Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 45 A.2d 857 (Pa. 1946) (blocking even a single gateway can constitute a seizure meriting equitable relief)