United Food & Commercial Workers International Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
137 A.3d 355
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- UFCW and affiliated organizations organized “flash mob” demonstrations at multiple Maryland Walmart stores (2011–2013); Walmart employees were not unionized.
- Demonstrations occurred inside stores and on adjacent parking/sidewalks; actions included chanting, blocking registers, obstructing ingress/egress, handbilling, confronting managers, and videotaping employees.
- Walmart filed an NLRB unfair labor practice (ULP) charge alleging coercion under Section 8(b)(1)(A); the NLRB charge was later narrowed and did not include the Maryland events.
- Walmart sued in Maryland state court for trespass and private and public nuisance, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief; the trial court issued a preliminary injunction and later a permanent injunction barring non-shopping demonstrations on Walmart property.
- The circuit court denied the Union’s motion to dismiss based on NLRA preemption, granted Walmart summary judgment, found Walmart had standing for public nuisance (special injury to access), and held the Anti‑Injunction Act did not bar relief or that Walmart met its requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walmart) | Defendant's Argument (UFCW) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NLRA preempts state trespass/nuisance claims | State trespass/nuisance protect property rights and do not intrude on NLRB jurisdiction because controversy concerns location/use of private property | Union: conduct is "arguably prohibited" by §8(b)(1)(A); filing ULP shows identity of controversies so state claims are preempted | Court: Not preempted — some conduct was arguably prohibited, but local‑interest exception applies; controversies are not identical to NLRB ULP issues (focus differs) |
| Standing for public nuisance | Walmart: blocking public road adjacent to store caused special injury to access, giving standing | Union: injury was public in kind, not special; no standing | Court: Walmart has special injury (access interference different in kind), so standing exists |
| Scope of injunction (easements and breadth) | Walmart: easements are limited to business ingress/egress; Walmart retains right to exclude non‑business use; injunction may bar all non‑shopping activity | Union: easement holders and public rights limit Walmart’s exclusive control; injunction overbroad — should target only demonstrations | Court: Walmart may exclude non‑business uses despite nonexclusive commercial easements; injunction against all non‑shopping activity was supported by evidence |
| Applicability of Maryland Anti‑Injunction Act | Walmart: dispute does not ‘‘involve or grow out of a labor dispute’’; even if it did, Walmart met the statutory injunction criteria (irreparable harm, no adequate remedy, police insufficiency) | Union: Matter is a labor dispute and the Act bars injunctive relief; Walmart failed to prove irreparable harm, lack of remedy at law, and police insufficiency | Court: Not a labor dispute; alternatively, Walmart satisfied Act’s heightened standards, so injunction proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Garmon v. San Diego Cty. Dist. Council, 359 U.S. 236 (preemption where activity is arguably protected or prohibited by NLRA; NLRB primary jurisdiction)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Cty. Dist. Council, 436 U.S. 180 (state trespass remedy not preempted when controversy differs from NLRB issue; local‑interest exception)
- Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527 (nonemployee organizers generally have no §7 right to access employer’s private property)
- Belknap, Inc. v. Hale, 463 U.S. 491 (state remedies not preempted where controversies before NLRB and state court are different)
- Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53 (state defamation claim not preempted despite related ULP issues)