Sue correct party to stop unlawful picketing activity

With considerable misgivings, the California Court of Appeal recently applied the state’s anti-SLAPP (“strategic lawsuits against public participation”) statute to toss a complaint made by Macy’s against a local union. Federal and California statutes impose severe barriers to any lawsuit asserting a union’s liability for unlawful picketing activities, but could Macy’s have successfully stated a claim anyway?

Macy’s sues union to stop unlawful picketing

Macy’s runs a department store in San Francisco. Local 39 represents a group of employees who work at the store fixing mechanical issues. After its last collective bargaining agreement with the company expired and the parties were unable to agree on a new agreement, Local 39 called a strike and began picketing at the store in September 2020.

In October 2020, Macy’s filed a five-page complaint against Local 39. It alleged the union had engaged in a continuing and escalating pattern of unlawful misconduct at the store, including:

Mass picketing at the store’s five entrances;