Chefs' Warehouse, Inc. v. Wiley

THE CHEFS' WAREHOUSE, INC., Plaintiff, v. DYLAN WILEY and LOCAL UNION 1430,INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS AFL-CIO, Defendants.

18-CV-11263 (JPO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

September 24, 2019

OPINION AND ORDER

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:

Plaintiff The Chefs' Warehouse ("Chefs' Warehouse") brings this action against Local Union 1430, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers AFL-CIO ("Local 1430") and its Business Agent, Dylan Wiley ("Wiley") (collectively "Defendants"), alleging unlawful secondary activity under the National Labor Relations Act, breach of contract, and defamation. Defendants move to dismiss the action. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

The factual allegations below are taken from Chefs' Warehouse's amended complaint (Dkt. No. 19 ("AC")) and are assumed to be true for purposes of deciding this motion.

Plaintiff Chefs' Warehouse is a nationally renowned specialty food distributor business in the United States. (AC ¶ 2.) It maintains a distribution center at 240 Food Center Drive, Bronx, New York ("Bronx Distribution Center"). (AC ¶ 11.) Defendant Local 1430, a labor organization, represents Chefs' Warehouse's drivers at the Bronx Distribution Center for collective bargaining purposes. (AC ¶ 11-12.) Defendant Wiley is the Business Agent of Local 1430. (AC ¶ 13.)

Chefs' Warehouse has a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with Local 1430 that was effective during the relevant period. (AC ¶ 20.) The CBA provides for a grievance and arbitration procedure to resolve any disputes arising under the CBA. (AC ¶ 21.) Under the CBA, a "grievance" is defined as "any complaints, disputes or questions as to the interpretation, application or performance of [the CBA] by either [Chefs' Warehouse] or [Local 1430]." (AC ¶ 22.) The CBA's procedure for resolving a grievance (the "Grievance Procedure") is as follows:

11.3 Grievance Resolution mechanism. Should a Grievance arise, the Employer and Union both shall endeavor to resolve the Grievance in accordance with the following procedures:

(a) Step 1. An Employee shall present the Grievance in writing to the Employer. Within five (5) business days from being presented with the Grievance, the Employer shall give the Employee a written answer to the grievance. . . .

(AC ¶ 23.) If the parties are unable to resolve their grievance through the Grievance Procedure, the CBA also provides for an arbitration procedure (the "Arbitration Procedure"):

11.5 Arbitration. If a Grievance is not resolved through the procedure outlined in Article 11.3, the Employer or Union may file for arbitration as follows:

(a) The Union and Employer shall select an Arbitrator from a panel provided by the American Arbitration Association that was requested by the filing party in accordance with the rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association.

(b) The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both parties.

(AC ¶ 23.) In addition, the CBA contains a no-strike clause which provides:

During the term of this Agreement, there will be no strikes, sympathy strikes, work stoppages, picket lines, slowdowns,boycotts, disturbances or concerted failure or refusal to perform assigned work by the Union or any Employee, and there will be no lockouts by the Employer for the duration of this Agreement. The Union agrees to support the Employer fully in maintaining operations in every way.

(AC ¶ 24.)

On or about November 29, 2018, a Chefs' Warehouse's delivery driver was involved in a verbal altercation (the "Incident") while delivering product to a Chefs' Warehouse customer (the "First Customer"). (AC ¶¶ 25-26.) Following the altercation, the driver alleged that the First Customer's employee had directed racially charged derogatory language toward him. (AC ¶ 27.)

On the same day, Chefs' Warehouse received a call from the First Customer, informing Chefs' Warehouse that someone from Local 1430 had threatened to picket and disrupt First Customer's business with a mob of union members and to install a giant inflatable rat outside of its place of business. (AC ¶ 32.) As a result, the First Customer terminated its business relationship with Chefs' Warehouse. (AC ¶ 33.)

Also on November 29, 2018, Chefs' Warehouse received a call from another customer (the "Second Customer"), informing Chefs' Warehouse that someone from Local 1430 had threatened to place a giant inflatable rat in front of its place of business. (AC ¶ 34.) Subsequently, the Second Customer informed Chefs' Warehouse that it "would terminate its business relationship with Chefs' Warehouse if the dispute with Local 1430 was not resolved by the close of business on Friday, December 7, 2018." (AC ¶ 36 (emphasis in original).)

One day after the Incident, Local 1430 contacted another Chefs' Warehouse customer (the "Third Customer") and threatened that a mob would come to the front of the store to protest how Chefs' Warehouse treats its drivers. (AC ¶ 37.) Within a week of the Incident, Local 1430 contacted two more Chefs' Warehouse's customers (the "Fourth Customer" and the "FifthCustomer") and threatened to set up a giant rat if they continue to do business with Chefs' Warehouse. (AC ¶ 38.)

In addition to threatening to picket at Chefs' Warehouse's customers, Local 1430 engaged in a publicity campaign. On December 2, 2018, Wiley informed Chefs' Warehouse that Local 1430 intended to hand out leaflets accusing Chefs' Warehouse of supporting racist business practices outside the Barclays Center, where Chefs' Warehouse would be giving a presentation for an industry conference.¹ (AC ¶ 40.) Wiley also emailed the Barclays Center to make similar accusations. (AC ¶ 41.) In addition, Wiley posted comments accusing Chefs' Warehouse of supporting racist business practices on the social media pages of Chefs' Warehouse and two of its customers. (AC ¶¶ 43-45.)

Chefs' Warehouse and Defendants had turbulent communications throughout the relevant period. For example, on November 29, 2018, Wiley emailed Chefs' Warehouse and stated that, because of the Incident, Local 1430 would engage in a "peaceful informational campaign" targeting Chefs' Warehouse's customers beginning on Monday, December 3, 2018. (AC ¶ 29.) The email alleged six other grievances (AC ¶ 29), which Wiley insisted had to be addressed before he would call off the "peaceful informational campaign" (AC ¶ 30).

In a letter to Wiley dated November 30, 2018, Chefs' Warehouse's counsel informed Defendants that they had failed to follow the appropriate grievance resolution process under the CBA, and that Chefs' Warehouse intended to seek legal remedies. (AC ¶ 48.) In response, Wiley sent an email threatening to forward the November 30 letter to the local news media and attaching a photograph of his middle finger. (AC ¶ 49; see Dkt. No. 19-5.) On December 1, 2018, counsel for Chefs' Warehouse again wrote to Defendants informing them that Chefs'Warehouse intended to file two unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"). (AC ¶ 50.) Wiley responded with an obscene personal attack on Chefs' Warehouse's counsel. (AC ¶ 51; see Dkt. No. 19-6.) Moreover, after Chefs' Warehouse brought this action, Defendants threatened to "increase [their] actions" because of the pending litigation. (AC ¶ 61.)

Chefs' Warehouse filed this action on December 3, 2018, asserting breach of contract and unlawful secondary activity claims against Local 1460, and defamation and tortious interference with contractual relations claims against both Defendants. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on December 17, 2018. (Dkt. No. 13.)² In response, Chefs' Warehouse amended its complaint, dropping the defamation claim against Local 1460 and the tortious inference with contractual relations claim entirely. (Dkt. No. 19.) Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which is now fully briefed, is ripe for resolution. (See Dkt. Nos. 22-27.)

II. Legal Standard

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads facts that would allow "the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Court must "accept[] as true the factual allegations in the complaint and draw[ ] all inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Allaire Corp. v. Okumus, 433 F.3d 248, 249-50 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Scutti Enters., LLC v. Park Place Entm't Corp., 322 F.3d211, 214 (2d Cir. 2003)). However, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

III. Discussion

Plaintiff's amended complaint purports to assert four causes of action. Against Local 1430, Plaintiff alleges breach of contract (AC ¶¶ 63-69), and unlawful secondary activity in violation of Section 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(b)(4) (AC ¶¶ 70-78). Against Wiley, Plaintiff asserts a defamation claim. (AC ¶¶ 79-89.) Against both Defendants, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. (AC ¶¶ 90-97.) Each claim is addressed in turn.

A. Breach of Contract

Chefs' Warehouse alleges that Local 1430 breached the CBA because it failed to comply with the CBA's no-strike clause, the Grievance Procedure, and the Arbitration Procedure. (AC ¶¶ 63-69.) Defendants argue that Local 1430 has not violated the CBA because those three provisions do not apply to Local 1430's conduct. (Dkt. No. 23 at 14-18.) The conduct at issue, for purposes of the breach of contract claim, is Local 1430's threats directed at Chefs'...