Property Rights – Labor Unions Can Picket In Front of Privately Owned Walkways Says California Supreme Court in Recent Ruling

The California Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in the hotly contested, private walkway vs. labor union picketing case. In the judgement handed down, the high court noted that labor union picketing activities may not have constitutional protection, but ultimately ruled that labor unions do have statutory protection under the Moscone Act (C.C.P. § 527.3) and Labor Code § 1138.1. The case in question, Ralphs Grocery Company v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8, was filed in Sacramento County Superior Court and traversed the Court of Appeal and oral argument in front of the California Supreme Court prior to the recent ruling.

The California Supreme Court’s ruling and disposition was summarized as follows:

“A private sidewalk in front of a customer entrance to a retail store in a shopping center is not a public forum for purposes of expressive activity under our state Constitution‘s liberty-of-speech provision as construed in Pruneyard, supra, 23 Cal.3d 899. On the private property of a shopping center, the public forum portion is limited to those areas that have been designed and furnished to permit and encourage the public to congregate and socialize at leisure. California‘s Moscone Act and section 1138.1 afford both substantive and procedural protections to peaceful union picketing on a private sidewalk outside a targeted retail store during a labor dispute, and such union picketing may not be enjoined on the ground that it constitutes a trespass. The Moscone Act and section 1138.1 do not violate the federal Constitution‘s free speech or equal protection guarantees on the ground that they give speech regarding a labor dispute greater protection than speech on other subjects.”

The applicable portions of the Moscone Act states that certain activities undertaken during labor disputes are legal and can neither be enjoined nor prohibited. This includes peaceful picketing, peaceful assembly, and formally publicizing a labor dispute. Labor code § 1138.1

Additionally, relevant portions of the Moscone Act prohibit a court from issuing an injunction during a labor dispute unless the court finds:

• Unlawful acts have been and will be committed (unless such acts are restrained)
• That substantial and irreparable injury to complainant‘s property will result
• That as to each item of relief granted greater injury will be inflicted upon the complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief
• That the complainant has no adequate remedy at law
• That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant‘s property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.

The Court of Appeal ruled that such laws violated the federal Constitution’s general prohibition on content-based speech regulation. The California Supreme Court, however, disagreed and did not find a conflict with the Constitution. Specifically, the California Supreme Court noted that speech in a labor dispute is not afforded greater protection than speech on other grounds. As such, the Moscone Act and Labor Code § 1138.1 were upheld, which ensures labor unions protection in facilitating picketing on a private sidewalk in front of a consumer entrance to a retail store.