Court backs construction union protests

Listen to this article

A federal court has confirmed Wisconsin construction workers standing on property leased by a corporation can protest allegedly unfair hiring practices.

The Chicago-based Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on March 9 ruled that Milwaukee-based Roundy’s Inc. violated federal labor laws in 2005 by forcing out Milwaukee Building and Construction Trades Council union members who were protesting at 23 Pick ’n Save grocery stores under construction.

“The genesis for the suit was that union personnel employees had the right to handbill on Roundy’s property,” Trades Council attorney Yingtao Ho said, “because Roundy’s didn’t have property interests to kick them out.”

The basis for the protests, said Ho, of Previant, Goldberg, Uelmen, Gratz, Miller & Brueggeman SC, Milwaukee, was a concern that Roundy’s was using substandard labor contracts to renovate or build new Pick ’n Save supermarkets in southeastern Wisconsin.

Ho said the scope of work done on the supermarkets included general construction, electrical and plumbing.

But Roundy’s attorney Lawrence Weiner, of Laner, Muchin, Dombrow, Becker, Levin & Tominberg Ltd., said the company wasn’t found to have engaged in any discriminatory hiring and had no obligation to hire workers from a specific union.

In its decision, the Seventh Circuit cited a ruling by an administrative law judge from the National Labor Relations Board that Roundy’s was allowed some control in its selection of laborers for the work. But union members still tried to organize boycotts of Pick ’n Save stores. From April to June 2005, members stationed at the 23 stores distributed handbills condemning the supermarkets and Roundy’s.

According to the federal ruling, protesters handed out competitor’s coupons and claimed Roundy’s failed to pass along to customers the savings from using cheap labor.

“Needless to say,” wrote Judge John Tinder in the decision, “the handbills were extremely unflattering to Roundy’s, some even pictured a rat to represent the company. In response, Roundy’s ejected the handbillers from the property.”

But that was illegal, Tinder wrote, because Roundy’s did not have leases that allowed exclusive property right over common areas.

Ho said because many of the Pick ’n Saves under construction shared parking lots with neighboring businesses, the stores had no legal authority to prevent the demonstrations unless they were disruptive or violent.

“The council had a right to continue to protest,” Ho said, “even though Roundy’s had a right to hire whoever they wanted.”

Weiner said Roundy’s was considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court but had not made a firm decision. He said the appellate court decision did not include any financial damages.

“Obviously,” Weiner said, “we disagree with the opinion.”

The case went to the 7th Circuit after an administrative law judge with the National Labor Relations Board sided with the Trades Council in November 2010.

The original complaint, filed by the Trades Council, claimed Roundy’s discriminated against legal union protests by prohibiting peaceful demonstrations.

Roundy’s appealed the board ruling, but the 7th Circuit affirmed the decision March 9.

“I think the decision clarifies the law,” Ho said, “on what rights protesters in that situation have going forward.”