PG Publishing v. Pittsburgh Typographical Union

2023 Pa. Super. 225, 304 A.3d 1227

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: November 6, 2023
• Docket: 1300 WDA 2022
• Status: Published

Opinion

J-A15010-23

2023 PA Super 225

PG PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF AND THE BUTLER EAGLE : PENNSYLVANIA : : v. : : : PITTSBURGH TYPOGRAPHICAL : UNION #7 (CWA LOCAL 14827); : No. 1300 WDA 2022 PITTSBURGH NEWPAPER PRINTING : PRESSMAN/PAPER HANDLERS UNION : #9 (TEAMSTERS LOCAL 24M/9N); : PITTSBURGH MAILERS UNION #22 : (CWA LOCAL 14842); AND : NEWSPAPER, NEWSPRINT, : MAGAZINE AND FILM DELIVERY : DRIVERS, HELPERS, AND HANDLERS : (TEAMSTERS #205/211); : NEWSPAPER GUILD OF PITTSBURGH : LOCAL #38061; DON MCCONNELL, : IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND : IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE : PITTSBURGH TYPOGRAPHICAL : UNION #7 (CWA LOCAL 14827) : PRESIDENT; CHRISTOPHER V. LANG, : IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND : IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE : PITTSBURGH NEWS PRINTING : PRESSMAN/PAPER HANDLERS UNION : #9 (TEAMSTER LOCAL 24M/9N) : PRESIDENT; JOHN A. CLARK, JR., IN : HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND IN : HIS CAPACITY AS THE PITTSBURGH : MAILERS UNION #22 (CWA LOCAL : 14842) PRESIDENT; EDWARD A. : BOEHM, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL : CAPACITY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS : THE NEWSPAPER, NEWSPRINT, : MAGAZINE AND FILM DELIVERY : DRIVERS, HELPERS, AND HANDLERS : (TEAMSTERS #205/211) PRESIDENT; : ZACHARY L. TANNER, IN HIS : J-A15010-23

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND IN HIS : CAPACITY AS THE NEWSPAPER : GUILD OF PITTSBURGH LOCAL : #38061 PRESIDENT; JOSEPH : BAKER; MARCY RUBIN; ROBERT : BOYLE; AND ALL OTHERS : CONSPIRING, ACTING IN CONCERT : OR OTHERWISE PARTICIPATING : WITH THEM OR ACTING IN THEIR : AID OR BEHALF :

Appellants

Appeal from the Order Entered November 1, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Civil Division at No(s): AD-2022-10850

BEFORE: MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

DISSENTING OPINION BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: November 6, 2023

I respectfully disagree with the Majority that the Labor Unions and

various members of those unions (“Labor Unions”) caused a seizure or

damage with “the intention of compelling [PG Publishing Company (“Post-

Gazette”)] to accede to any demands, conditions, or terms of employment, or

for collective bargaining.” See 43 P.S. § 206d. Therefore, I would find that

the trial court erred in issuing a permanent injunction.

Under the Labor Anti-Injunction Act, a court lacks jurisdiction to issue

an injunction in a case included under the Act unless certain exceptions apply.

The exceptions include where the union has seized or damaged property of

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

-2- J-A15010-23

the employer with the intent of compelling the employer to accede to

demands:

No court of this Commonwealth shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in a case included within this act, except in strict conformity with the provisions of this act, nor shall any such restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction be issued contrary to the public policy declared in this act. Exclusive jurisdiction and power to hear and determine all actions and suits coming under the provisions of this act, shall be vested in the courts of common pleas of the several counties of this Commonwealth: Provided, however, That this act shall not apply in any case—

***

(d) Where in the course of a labor dispute as herein defined, an employe, or employes acting in concert, or a labor organization, or the members, officers, agents, or representatives of a labor organization or anyone acting for such organization, seize, hold, damage, or destroy the plant, equipment, machinery, or other property of the employer with the intention of compelling the employer to accede to any demands, conditions, or terms of employment, or for collective bargaining.

43 P.S. § 206d(d).

Here, I would find that the Labor Unions did not seize the property. That

the vehicles were briefly delayed in exiting the facility by a small group does

not constitute a seizure. Cf. Carnegie-Ill. Steel Corp. v. United

Steelworkers of Am., 45 A.2d 857, 859, 861-62 (Pa. 1946) (affirming

preliminary injunction where, among other things, that 100 to 200 picketers

standing three deep and extending across the gate and blocking entrance to

plant); Fountain Hill Underwear Mills v. Amalgamated Clothing

-3- J-A15010-23

Workers’ Union of Am., 143 A.2d 354, 356, 357-59 (Pa. 1958) (finding a

Section 206(d) exception applied where two hundred picketers obstructed the

sole entrance to the plant and prevented employees from entering the building

and numerous acts of violence occurred); Turner Constr. v. Plumbers Local

690, 130 A.3d 47, 60-62 (Pa.Super. 2015) (finding a seizure occurred where

a large rally that lasted six hours blocked the only two gates to the

construction site and prevented the delivery of material and impeded the

arrival of contractors scheduled to work). The Labor Unions’ actions did not

deprive the owner “of the use and enjoyment of the property so that it

becomes utterly valueless to him.” Turner, 130 A.3d at 60 (quoting

Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers of

Am. (CIO) Local 601, 46 A.2d 16, 20 (Pa. 1946)).

Further, I would find any damage was not done with the “with the

intention of compelling the employer to accede to any demands, conditions,

or terms of employment, or for collective bargaining.” See 43 P.S. § 206d(d).

Rather, the evidence established that the damage occurred after members of

the Labor Unions were sprayed with bear spray, mace, or a similar substance,

and done in response to the chemicals, not with the intent to compel any

action from the Post-Gazette. See N.T., 10/31/22, at 45 (stating no damage

to windows and mirrors occurred until after a spray was released from the

van); id. at 92-94, 103 (no damage occurred until after a spray was released

from van). I therefore would conclude the Post Gazette did not establish a

clear right to relief.

-4- J-A15010-23

Because I would conclude the trial court erred in granting the injunction,

I would not reach whether the injunction issued was overbroad.1 Moreover, I

would remand for further proceedings on the Labor Unions’ claim regarding

reasonable attorney fees and costs.

I agree with the Majority that the Post Gazette’s claim the court erred

because it failed to comply with Pa.R.C.P. 1531(f)(1) does not merit relief.

Majority at 24-26.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

1 However, if I reached the issue, I would agree with the learned Majority that

the injunction issued by the trial court was overbroad.

-5-