United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 June 2016
• Docket Number: No. 376, Sept. Term, 2015.,376, Sept. Term, 2015.
• Citation: United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 228 Md.App. 203, 137 A.3d 355 (Md. App. 2016)
• Parties: UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al. v. WAL–MART STORES, INC., et al.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

228 Md.App. 203

137 A.3d 355

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al.

v.WAL–MART STORES, INC., et al.

No. 376, Sept. Term, 2015.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

June 1, 2016.

Geroge Wiszynski, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Jennifer M. Alexander(Brassel, Alexander & Rice, LLC, Annapolis, MD)Steven D. Wheeless(Douglas D. Janicik, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Phoenix, AZ), on the brief, for appellee.

Panel: DEBORAH S. EYLER, BERGER, and GLENN T. HARRELL, JR.(Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

EYLER, DEBORAH S., J.

The primary issue in this case is whether an employer's state law claims for trespass and private and public nuisance asserted in a Maryland court against a union that does not represent its employees, who are not unionized, is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act,29 U.S.C. § 151 –167.We hold that they are not.

The appellants are the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (“the UFCW”), its subsidiary, the Organization United for Respect at Walmart (“OURWalmart”), and related people and organizations (collectively “the Union”).¹The appellees are Walmart Stores, Inc., and its affiliated companies, WalMart Stores East, LP, and Sam's East, Inc.(collectively “Walmart”).In the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Walmart sued the Union for trespass and public and private nuisance, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damages.The court granted a preliminary injunction; denied the Union's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and granted summary judgment in favor of Walmart, entering a permanent injunction.

In this appeal, the Union presents five questions for review, which we have consolidated, rephrased, and reordered as follows:

I.Did the circuit court err by denying its motion to dismiss Walmart's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?

II.Did the circuit court err by denying its motion to dismiss Walmart's public nuisance claim for lack of standing?

III.Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in fashioning the scope of its permanent injunction?

IV.Did the circuit court err by ruling that this controversy is not a “labor dispute” and/or by finding that Walmart satisfied the heightened requirements of the Anti–Injunction Act?^[2]

Finding no error, we shall affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The UFCW is a labor union that represents grocery, retail, meatpacking, and food processing workers.Beginning in 2011, the Union held a number of demonstrations at Walmart stores in 13 states, including Maryland.³Walmart employees are not unionized.

The Union demonstrations in Maryland took place between July 16, 2011, and September 5, 2013, at Walmart stores in Laurel, Landover Hills, Bowie, Hanover, Arbutus, Severn, and Germantown.Most were carried out inside the stores, with some being held on adjacent parking areas that were owned or leased by Walmart, and one being held on a nearby public road.The demonstrations were organized like “flash mobs,” meaning that demonstrators were summoned by social media or mobile phone communications to quickly gather at a store.The demonstrators showed up en masse,“crashing” the store in a coordinated effort.They marched through the store vestibule and aisles, chanting, singing, blowing whistles, shouting into bullhorns and megaphones, and littering the store with flyers.Some of the demonstrations were small, lasting only 15 to 20 minutes.Others were large, with upwards of 100 or more demonstrators, and lasting over an hour.

In many of the in-store events, the demonstrators interfered with customers by blocking access to the cash registers and the restrooms.During a demonstration in the Laurel Walmart on July 16, 2011, for example, 40 demonstrators wearing “OURWalmart” tee-shirts formed a human chain stretching from the first to the last checkout counter.

The demonstrators also blocked ingress and egress to parking lots, parking spaces, and store entrances.In May of 2012, demonstrators at the Bowie Walmart parked a large van emblazoned with OURWalmart logos in the parking lot.They played OURWalmart videos on a television screen mounted on the van, piped music through speakers, and solicited customers and employees as they passed by.

In some instances, demonstrators inside stores interrupted Walmart management meetings, forcing themselves into the meeting rooms and videotaping the managers' efforts to get them to leave.In all the demonstrations, Walmart managers repeatedly told the demonstrators to leave Walmart's property, but they refused.Ultimately, they were removed by the police.Walmart's lawyers sent cease and desist letters to counsel for the UFCW in October of 2011, October of 2012, November of 2012, and April of 2013, to no avail.

In March of 2013, Walmart filed an unfair labor practice (“ULP”) charge against the UFCW and OURWalmart, with the National Labor Relations Board(“NLRB”).It alleged that the UFCW had violated section 8(b)(1)(A) of the NLRA“by planning, orchestrating, and conducting a series of unauthorized and blatantly trespassory in-store mass demonstrations” by which it “restrained and coerced [Walmart] employees” in the exercise of their right to refrain from unionizing.⁴It attached a summary of 70 “events” the Union had held at Walmart stores in thirteen states, including twelve in Maryland.The allegations in the ULP charge all pertained to instances when demonstrators confronted Walmart managers or employees directly, using “in your face” tactics in an effort to intimidate them into supporting the Union.Instances during the demonstrations that did not include such coercive activities were not included in the ULP charge.

Walmart amended its ULP charge in May of 2013, narrowing its scope to several events at a few stores around the country.The amended ULP charge did not include any events at Walmart stores in Maryland.

On September 20, 2013, Walmart filed the lawsuit that gives rise to this appeal.⁵In a first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed on October 2, 2013, it alleged that the Union had violated Maryland law “through coordinated, statewide acts of trespass,” including by conducting “in-store ‘flash mobs' ” and by blocking “ingress and egress to parking lots, parking spaces, vehicular traffic, and store entrances.”The FAC recited detailed allegations about more than 15 demonstrations at the seven Maryland Walmart stores we have named.As noted, Walmart set forth claims for trespass and public and private nuisance, and sought nominal damages, a permanent injunction, and declaratory relief.

On October 10, 2013, Walmart filed a motion for preliminary injunction.The court held an evidentiary hearing and granted the motion.Its order, entered on November 26, 2013, enjoined the Union from entering Walmart's property in Maryland “for any purpose other than shopping for and/or purchasing merchandise”; from “engag[ing] in activities such as unlawful picketing, patrolling, parading, demonstrations, ‘flash mobs,’ handbilling, solicitation, customer interference, and manager confrontations”; and from “engaging in any nuisance conduct off Walmart's private property ... which blocks, causes to be blocked, disrupts and/or interferes” with access by consumers or employees to the property.⁶

In the meantime, on October 11, 2013, the Union filed a motion to dismiss the FAC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Walmart's claims were preempted by the NLRA.Walmart opposed the motion.The court held a hearing, at the conclusion of which it ruled that Walmart's claims were not preempted by the NLRA.It entered an order denying the motion on November 26, 2013.

On August 19, 2014, after extensive discovery, Walmart and the Union filed cross-motions for summary judgment.At a hearing on March 3, 2015, the court denied the Union's motion and granted Walmart's motion.It issued a memorandum opinion and order to that effect, which was docketed on March 16, 2015.Also on that day, the court entered a permanent injunction, prohibiting the Union and its agents or associates from:

1.Entering on Walmart's private property in the State of Maryland to engage in activities such as picketing, patrolling, parading, demonstrations, chanting, “flash mobs,” handbilling, solicitation, customer disruptions, manager delegations or confrontations, or associate engagement for a non-shopping purpose;

2.Entering on Walmart's private property in the State of Maryland without permission for any purpose other than shopping for and/or purchasing merchandise at Walmart's stores;

3.Interfering with, obstructing or blocking Walmart's and its customers' access to, and use of, easements and/or right-of-ways granted by Walmart across or upon apron sidewalks and parking lots adjacent to stores for which Walmart has a “building only” lease; and 4.Engaging in any nuisance conduct off Walmart's private property which disrupts and/or interferes with Walmart customers' or associates' access to, or ability to move around or exit, Walmart private property in the State of Maryland[.]

The permanent injunction defined “Walmart's private property” to mean the interior of its stores and other facilities in Maryland and the “apron sidewalks, parking lots, and other areas on any parcel of property in Maryland that Walmart controls as owner or lessee.”

DISCUSSION

I.Preemption

(a)

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, makes a properly enacted federal law “the supreme Law of the Land.”Whether such a law preempts state law “fundamentally is a question of congressional intent.”English v. Gen. Elec. Co.,496 U.S. 72, 78–79, 110 S.Ct. 2270, 110 L.Ed.2d 65(1990).State law may be preempted by federal law expressly, when Congress so states, or impliedly, either when Congress regulates a field so as to evidence its intent that it be occupied exclusively by federal law, or when federal law conflicts with state law.Law v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs...