Robert Lloyd Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n, Local Union 16
Docket: CC 97 P-1041; SC S44145
Court: Oregon Supreme Court; July 18, 1997; Oregon; State Supreme Court
Robert Lloyd Sheet Metal, Inc. obtained a temporary injunction against the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local Union 16, and organizer Mike Anderson, prohibiting them from entering the employer's property or any site where the employer is performing work, and from interfering with the employer's employees during working hours. Local 16 and Anderson appealed this injunction under ORS 662.120, which allows for direct review by the court. The court reviews equity cases de novo but gives significant weight to the trial court’s findings regarding witness credibility and conflicts in testimony.
The findings indicate that the employer operates as a subcontractor in multiple states and has over 60 employees. Job sites are restricted access areas where visitors must comply with specific entry protocols established by the general contractor. Anderson, who has been organizing for Local 16 since 1994, has been soliciting the employer’s employees for union membership. Incidents leading to the injunction include trespassing on the employer's property, an assault by Anderson on an employee that led to criminal charges, and an incident where Local 16 representatives disturbed an employee during a work meeting. Additionally, representatives of Local 16 failed to follow the general contractor's entry procedures at a job site, leading to a warning letter to stay off the premises unless compliant. The court ultimately vacated the temporary injunction.
Anderson did not follow the established procedures for accessing the job site at the Washington Community Action Center. At three other job sites, employees reported his "harassing" behavior to the senior project manager, requesting that Anderson be prevented from disrupting their work. Over the past three months leading up to the hearing, Anderson visited approximately 18 job sites where the employer was a subcontractor, engaging with employees during work hours at four of these sites. He claims that he converses with workers when they are alone, leaving only if specifically asked by the general contractor, but not by subcontractors like the employer.
On May 5, 1995, the employer requested that Local 16 refrain from contacting workers during their tasks and established a no-solicitation policy prohibiting nonemployees from soliciting or distributing literature at job sites. Local 16 did not adhere to this request. The statutory framework under ORS 662.080 restricts the issuance of injunctions in labor disputes, requiring a hearing and specific findings, including evidence of unlawful acts and irreparable injury to the complainant. Additionally, ORS 662.110 limits injunctions to specific acts identified in the complaint.
The parties acknowledge the existence of a labor dispute as defined by ORS 662.010(1), and a hearing was held per statutory requirements. Local 16 admitted to knowing and authorizing Anderson's actions. The main arguments presented by Local 16 and Anderson include the assertion that federal law, specifically the National Labor Relations Act, protects organizing activities from injunctions, and that the evidence does not satisfy the five requirements outlined in ORS 662.080 for issuing an injunction.
The court concludes that the requirements of ORS 662.080(1) are not met, focusing on whether unlawful acts have been committed by Local 16 and Anderson, and whether they will continue unless restrained. The employer claims three types of unlawful acts:
1. **Disorderly Conduct**: The first involves Anderson’s prior conviction for disorderly conduct. Anderson’s testimony indicates he learned not to engage in physical altercations, and there is no evidence of similar conduct for over a year, leading the court to find that such unlawful acts are unlikely to recur.
2. **Criminal Trespass on Employer's Premises**: The employer did not seek to enjoin trespass on its own premises in its petition for an injunction. Under ORS 662.110(2), an injunction is only available for activities explicitly mentioned in the petition. Therefore, the court does not examine whether criminal trespass will continue in this context.
3. **Criminal Trespass on Construction Sites**: The employer seeks to prevent Local 16 and Anderson from entering job sites where its employees work. Criminal trespass in the second degree is defined, and the state must prove that the direction to leave from the person in charge was lawful. Anderson did not leave the site when the general contractor objected, but the court finds no evidence that he will continue to disregard such directions without restraint. In instances where the employer objected but the general contractor did not, the authority of the employer to order Anderson off the property remains in question. The court concludes that Anderson is likely to continue disrupting the employer's employees, necessitating an examination of the employer's authority as a subcontractor to provide such orders.
The court reaffirmed that either actual or constructive possession is necessary to support a claim of trespass, as established in Boyer v. Anduiza. The record lacked evidence of agreements between the employer and general contractors or between property owners and general contractors, resulting in insufficient proof of the employer's actual or constructive possession of the construction sites. Consequently, the court could not determine that Anderson and Local 16 committed criminal trespass by not vacating the sites as directed by the employer. The absence of evidence indicating unlawful acts committed by Local 16 or Anderson led the court to conclude there was no legal basis for an injunction. Therefore, the circuit court's temporary injunction order was vacated, and the issue of threatened unlawful acts was deemed unnecessary to address.
