Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union
206 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3222
Colo. Ct. App.2016Background
- UFCW and Organization United for Respect at Walmart staged in-store demonstrations and "flash mobs" at Walmart locations, including in Colorado; Walmart protested and filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, later dismissed at Walmart's request.
- Walmart then sued in Colorado state court seeking permanent injunctive and declaratory relief to enjoin unions from: (1) unauthorized in-store activities (picketing, flash mobs, soliciting, manager confrontations, etc.); (2) entering Walmart property without intent to shop; and (3) blocking access to stores.
- The unions moved to dismiss under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), arguing NLRA preemption deprived the state court of subject-matter jurisdiction; the district court denied the motion.
- The district court granted Walmart summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction covering ~94 Colorado Walmart locations (and six leased locations), including 19 Walmart-owned sites subject to nonexclusive easements.
- On appeal, unions argued (1) the state trespass claim was preempted because it was "arguably prohibited" by the NLRA and (2) Walmart could not obtain injunctions on property burdened by nonexclusive easements without showing unreasonable interference with Walmart’s use.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed: the NLRA did not arguably prohibit the trespass claim (no Garmon preemption), and Walmart, as title/possessory owner, need only prove unauthorized entry to prevail on trespass even where nonexclusive easements exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NLRA preempts Walmart's state trespass suit (Garmon preemption) | Walmart: trespass claim concerns location/possession, not unfair labor practice; state adjudication won't interfere with NLRB jurisdiction | Unions: state claim is "arguably prohibited" by NLRA because same facts/legal theory/remedy as NLRB charge | Court: Not preempted — federal issue (coercion of employees) differs from trespass element (unauthorized physical intrusion); no realistic risk of interfering with NLRB |
| Whether Walmart needed to show "unreasonable interference" to enjoin trespass on land subject to nonexclusive easements | Walmart: as title holder with possession, need only prove intentional unauthorized entry to establish trespass | Unions: nonexclusive easements mean Walmart lacks exclusive possession; injunction requires showing unreasonable interference with Walmart’s use | Court: Walmart may sue for trespass based on possession/title; no special "unreasonable interference" requirement for nonexclusive easements; injunction not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Chamber of Commerce of United States v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60 (2008) (describes federal NLRA preemption principles)
- San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (establishes preemption when state regulation would interfere with NLRB jurisdiction)
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego Cty. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180 (1978) (state trespass claims not preempted where federal issue differs from simple trespass question)
- Local 926, Int’l Union of Operating Engineers v. Jones, 460 U.S. 669 (1983) (preemption where state and federal claims share a core element essential to unfair labor practice)
- Belknap, Inc. v. Hale, 463 U.S. 491 (1983) (state tort claims may avoid preemption when different legal focus than NLRA claim)
- Building & Construction Trades Council v. Associated Builders & Contractors, 507 U.S. 218 (1993) (preemption doctrine protects NLRB’s exclusive competence)
- Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers, 383 U.S. 53 (1966) (explains need to relinquish state jurisdiction to avoid interference with national labor policy)