Friday, August 30, 2013

Fourth Circuit WCS Decision Exposes Unions to Sham Litigation Liability

GavelFriend of the blog, Jon Harkavy, sent along a copy of an important Fourth Circuit case issued this week.  He thinks the Blog's readers would be interested in reading it.  I agree. Here is the Fourth Circuit case at issue.

WCS v. UFCW Local 27 exposes unions to "sham litigation" liability in the face of First Amendment protection for filing lawsuits.  The case arises from UFCW's opposition to shopping center developments where non-union Wegmans stores are located.  The Fourth Circuit's decision permits the developer to sue the union in a decision that may have a chilling effect on this type of union activity.

Could be yet another avenue through which anti-union employers harass union organizing campaigns through litigation.  Stay tuned.

PS

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2013/08/fourth-circuit-wcs-decision-exposes-unions-to-sham-litigation-liability.html

Labor Law | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef019aff16fb31970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fourth Circuit WCS Decision Exposes Unions to Sham Litigation Liability:

Comments

I don't know how you say that this is a case where "anti-union employers harass union organizing campaigns through litigation." The litigation that was filed here was filed by and on behalf of the union, who was seeking to put pressure a future tenant of the shopping center, and who wasn't even a party to the litigation. Which also assumes that Wegman's is an anti-union employer - and I do not believe that there is any evidence of that, anywhere. If union do not want to be 'harassed' by the results of this decision, they should refrain from filing (and financing) sham lawsuits.

Also, the union fund that filed the suit - how does this fit with their fiduciary duties? They used fund money to finance litigation against a developer to pressure a future tenant of the developer. Neither company is a contributor to their fund. I thought funds were supposed to provide benefits to its members, and unions were supposed to organize...

Posted by: Tor | Sep 6, 2013 10:07:32 AM

Post a comment