Section 55 Adams Dairy (1956)?Picketing Unrelated to a ?Labor Dispute? or for an Unlawful Purpose

• Library: Employer-Employee Law 2008

Picketing for an unlawful purpose is unprotected by the First Amendment and may, unless otherwise preempted, be appropriately enjoined in state court. San Diego Bldg. Trades Council, Millmen’s Union, Local 2020 v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959). Most disputes between unions and employers involve disagreements over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment and are correctly described as “labor disputes.” Unions are free to use their economic weapons, including picketing, to win concessions over such matters. But when concerted activity is used for no purpose other than to inflict financial harm on an employer, an injunction against the conduct may appropriately be obtained.

In Adams Dairy v. Burke, 293 S.W.2d 281 (Mo. 1956), the employer brought suit against a local dairy employees union and the union’s members, officers, and agents to enjoin the distribution of pamphlets and published articles urging distributees and readers not to buy the plaintiff employer’s products. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the defendants’ concerted activity against the plaintiff was not reasonably related to or in furtherance of any legitimate objective of the union but was imposed and carried out primarily as a means of inflicting damage to the plaintiff’s business. This constituted malicious interference with the business and an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade and in violation of the Missouri antitrust statutes.

Adams Dairy was decided before the formulation of the current preemption doctrine, Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, and in regard to the private sector, Missouri courts have carefully limited its application. In Henderson v. Plumbers Local No. 8, of American Federation of Labor, 471 S.W.2d 929 (Mo. 1971), the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed an order granting an injunction and damages against a union that picketed an employer for allegedly not paying area standards. The Court concluded that the picketing was, under Garmon, arguably subject to the NLRA and thus beyond the jurisdiction of the circuit court. It rejected the applicability of Adams Dairy because it was...