Turner Constr. v. Plumbers Local 690

130 A.3d 47

TURNER CONSTRUCTION, Appellee

v.PLUMBERS LOCAL 690 and Michael Bradley and Steamfitters Local 420 and Anthony Gallagher and Sprinkler Fitters Local 692 and Wayne Miller and International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers Local 14 and Stephen F. Pettit and John Doe,Appeal of Plumbers Local 690 and Michael Bradley, Appellants.

Turner Construction, Appellee

v.Plumbers Local 690 and Michael Bradley and Steamfitters Local 420 and Anthony Gallagher and Sprinkler Fitters Local 692 and Wayne Miller and International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers Local 14 and Stephen F. Pettit and John Doe,Appeal of Sprinkler Fitters Local 692 and Wayne Miller, Appellants.

Turner Construction, Appellee

v.Plumbers Local 690 and Michael Bradley and Steamfitters Local 420 and Anthony Gallagher and Sprinkler Fitters Local 692 and Wayne Miller and International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers Local 14 and Stephen F. Pettit and John Doe,Appeal of International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers, Local 14 and Stephen F. Pettit, Appellants.

Nos. 2421 EDA 2014

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued March 19, 2015.

Filed Dec. 14, 2015.

Reargument Denied Feb. 8, 2016.

Robert P. Curley, Philadelphia, for Plumbers Local 690, Michael Bradley, Sprinkler Fitters Local 692 and Wayne Miller.

Thomas M. Gribbon, Jr., Philadephia, for International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers, Local 14 and Stephen F. Pettit.

George A. Voegele, Jr., Philadelphia, for Turner Construction, appellee.

BEFORE: BOWES, DONOHUE, and LAZARUS, JJ.

OPINION BY BOWES, J.:

Plumbers Local 690, Michael Bradley, Sprinkler Fitters Local 692, Wayne Miller, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers Local 14, and Stephen F. Pettit¹ (unless otherwise noted, hereinafter referred to collectively as "Appellants") appeal from the July 18, 2014 preliminary injunction that restricted their picketing activity at a construction site managed by Turner Construction Co. ("Turner").² Appellants, members of a Philadelphia-area trades association,³ share the legal position that the preliminary injunction violates the Labor Anti–Injunction Act, 43 P.S. §§ 206a –206r (sometimes referred to herein as the "Act"). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

The following facts are relevant to our review. Turner is managing the construction of a medical facility operated by Children's Hospital of Philadelphia ("CHOP") and located at 401 North Gulph Road in Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania. Throughout the project, Turner engaged both union and nonunion contractors to perform various construction work. No labor dispute existed between Turner and any of its employees or contractors.⁴ Instead, the instant dispute arose between Turner and Plumbers Local 690 due to the company's decision to utilize a non-union plumbing contractor, Worth & Company ("Worth"), on the CHOP construction project. Specifically, on April 21, 2014, in response to Turner's subcontract with Worth, members of Plumbers Local 690 and other unidentified individuals initiated picket lines at the CHOP construction site.⁵ The trial court described the April 21, 2014 rally as follows:

The picketers engaged in a variety of activities in protest of Worth & Company's employment by Turner. Some of the amassed picketers wore signs [that acknowledged Plumbers Union Local 690.] Others, about thirty individuals from the mass of picketers, assembled in front of the Construction Site's two entrances. The two groups stationed at the gates prevented workers, vehicles, and equipment from entering the Construction Site. Other picketers stood against the fence on the Construction Site, trespassing on the property. Protesters also inflated a union rat [ (a symbol used to draw attention to a labor dispute) ] near Gate B on the Construction Site itself, again, trespassing on the Construction Site.

The Turner management personnel on-site called the Upper Merion Township Police Department, which dispatched officers to the scene. Police requested that the picketers move to Gate B, and the picketers complied. Nevertheless, thirty picketers remained on the Construction Site and continued to mass in front of Gate B, blocking ingress and egress. Despite the presence of police officers, members of Local 690 and others continued trespassing on the Construction Site and blockading Gate B.

Trial Court Opinion, 10/9/14, 2–3 (footnote and citations to affidavits omitted).

Turner immediately filed a complaint in equity against Plumbers Local 690 and its business manager, Mr. Bradley, and the following day it petitioned for special relief seeking to enjoin Plumbers Local 690 from continuing to disrupt construction. The petition for special relief included a proposed order that established several restrictions on the picketing activities at the CHOP construction site. Asserting that aspects of the picketing, such as blocking ingress and egress to the site, amounted to a seizure, Turner explicitly invoked § 206d of the Act, set forth infra, as a basis to avoid the Act's prohibition on restraining orders and injunctions in labor disputes. Plumbers Local 690 and its business manager, the only parties involved at that stage of the dispute, conferred and settled the matter without a hearing and stipulated to a special injunction⁶ that adopted the terms of Turner's proposed preliminary injunction, with some modifications that are not relevant herein.⁷

The resultant special injunction was entered on April 22, 2014. That order enjoined Plumbers Local 690 from trespassing on the construction site, blocking access to the site, and preventing other contractors from performing their work on the project by obstruction, mass picketing, or coercion. Unlimited picketing was restricted to areas beyond eight feet from the curb and twenty-five feet from either of the two gates. Plumbers Local 690 and persons working in concert with it could have a maximum of five people at the construction gates. The special injunction also enjoined Plumbers Local 690, and "all others acting on their behalf or in concert with them [from blocking] any persons from entering onto or performing their work at the construction site[.]" Special Injunction, 4/22/14, at 2 (emphasis added). The plumbers union and other individuals acting in concert with it were enjoined from "[p]icketing on CHOP property, which mean[t] using pickets ... more than eight (8) feet in from the curb around 401 North Gulph Road[.]" Id.

Additionally, the special injunction enjoined "all picketing at or within twenty-five (25) feet of any of the means of ingress or egress ... or other means of access to the Construction Site [and] otherwise unlawfully interfering, either directly or indirectly, with any person, employee of vehicle entering or leaving the Construction Site[.]" Id. Plumbers Local 690 was also enjoined from "assisting, aiding or abetting any person or persons who violate or attempt to violate this Order[.]" Id. To protect against potential damages in the event Plumbers Local 690 was wrongfully enjoined, Turner submitted a $5,000 bond as security. Finally, the stipulated special injunction stated that no hearing would be scheduled absent written request of either party.

The picketing on behalf of Plumbers Local 690 at the CHOP construction site continued without interruption throughout May and June 2014. N.T., 7/14/14, at 33. The composition of the picketers changed at different times and included members of Appellant labor unions involved herein, specifically Steamfitters Local 420, Sprinkler Fitters Local 692, and Heat and Frost Insulators Local 14. Id. at 26, 28. At times, the number of picketers exceeded the five-person limits at the gates outlined in the special injunction and the protestors engaged in prohibited activities such as harassing workers attempting to enter the site and impeding deliveries. Id. at 26, 33–34. Thus, notwithstanding its agreement, Plumbers Local 690 failed to ensure that others acting in concert with it complied with the dictates of the special injunction. Eventually, the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department read the April 2014 order to the picketers and posted a copy of the order on the perimeter fence surrounding the construction site. Trial Court Opinion, 10/9/14, at 4; Ricketts Aff. ¶ 9.

On July 9, 2014, a large-scale rally occurred at the CHOP construction site and is the genesis of the present appeal. Between 5:45 a.m. and 11:55 a.m. on that date, picketers amassed at the site, erected a tent within the eight-foot perimeter established in the special injunction, and gathered inside each of the two construction gates. The participants varied in numbers during the course of the morning but, at its height, the rally included 181 people. The only two gates to the site were blocked. The Upper Merion Police Department and Montgomery County Sheriff's Department responded to the demonstration, but did not stop the picketers from continuing to block the ingress and egress at the two construction gates. The picketers prevented the delivery of materials and impeded the arrival of contractors scheduled to work that day. Hence, the blockade disrupted Turner's ability to perform work at the site until the demonstration ended.

On that same day, Turner received permission to file an amended complaint in equity at the original action number. It joined Sheet Metal Workers Local 19, Steamfitters Local 420, Sprinkler Fitters Local 692, the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators Local 14, and each organization's respective business manager. The memorandum in support of its motion to amend the equity complaint and join the additional defendants asserted that:

Plaintiff seeks to add these parties because they are now or have in the recent past engaged in the same illegal conduct as Defendant Plumbers Local 690 at the same

...