Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. San Diego County District Council of Carpenters

Supreme Court of California · 1979 · Labor Law

Labor LawLabor InjunctionsState Labor LawPeaceful PicketingTrespassPreemptionMoscone ActCode Civ. Proc. 527.3

Facts

To protest Sears' refusal to agree either to use carpenters dispatched by the union or to adhere to the union's master agreement, the union picketed on privately owned sidewalks immediately surrounding the Sears store in Chula Vista. The picketing was peaceful and orderly, with no violence, threats, or obstruction of traffic or access to the store. Sears requested that the pickets leave its property and, when they refused, sued and obtained a preliminary injunction forbidding picketing on Sears' property. Public sidewalks were available only 220 to 490 feet from the store, which the union claimed was too far away for customers to read the signs.

Issue

Whether, after remand from the United States Supreme Court, California courts could enjoin peaceful union picketing on privately owned sidewalks outside Sears' store. More specifically, the question was whether such picketing was lawful under existing California labor law and therefore protected from injunction by Code of Civil Procedure section 527.3.

Rule

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.3, construed in accordance with existing California labor law, courts lack jurisdiction to enjoin peaceful labor picketing on private walkways outside a store when the picketing involves neither fraud, violence, breach of the peace, nor interference with access or egress. Prior California decisions recognizing such activity as lawful control the construction of the Moscone Act, and neither federal constitutional doctrine nor Babcock & Wilcox gives the employer an affirmative right to obtain a state-court injunction in these circumstances.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Fresno, members of a plumbers' union picket on a privately owned pedestrian path directly outside the entrance of a home-improvement store operated by Valley Forge Supply, Inc. The path is open to customers, and the picketers walk in an orderly line, do not block doors, and make no threats; the store seeks an injunction solely because the path is private property.

Under the majority's approach, should a California court issue the injunction?

Explanation. The majority held that section 527.3 must be construed in light of existing California labor law, which recognizes as lawful peaceful labor picketing on private walkways outside a store open to public use. Because the picketing here is peaceful and does not interfere with access or egress, the court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin it. The majority rejected any requirement that the union prove lack of alternative channels as a prerequisite under California law.