United Food & Commercial Workers International Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
451 S.W.3d 584
Ark.2014Background
- Wal-Mart filed a ULP with the NLRB alleging NLRA violations stemming from union flash-mob demonstrations at Wal-Mart stores.
- Wal-Mart amended its NLRB charge to remove trespass allegations to pursue relief in state court, and Wal-Mart filed suit in Benton County Circuit Court seeking injunction only.
- A TRO was entered on June 3, 2013, and the TRO was converted to a preliminary injunction without a full evidentiary hearing due to stipulation.
- The injunction was based on the parties’ stipulation and the union conceded nothing had changed since entry; the trial was set for April 2014.
- On October 4, 2013, the union moved to dissolve or modify the preliminary injunction, arguing preemption under NLRA and lack of irreparable harm, among other grounds.
- The circuit court denied the motion, and on appeal the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, citing preemption and declining to address the union’s new arguments raised in reply briefs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NLRA preempt the state-law injunction challenge? | Wal-Mart argues NLRA preempts the state claim and inquiry. | Union contends preemption governs, barring state action. | Preemption applies; injunction affirmed on merits. |
| Is the union barred by judicial estoppel from dissolving the injunction? | Wal-Mart contends union cannot retreat from stipulation. | Union maintains no basis to dissolve absent changed circumstances. | Affirmation rests on preemption; judicial-estoppel issue not reached on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 353 Ark. 902 (2003) (preliminary injunction standards; equity review in Arkansas)
- San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (NLRA preemption framework)
- Lechmere v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527 (1992) (limits of NLRA preemption and access context)