In this case, Ralph’s Grocery argued that its entrance was privately owned and that the company could regulate speech activities at the entrance. The state Supreme Court first examined whether the California Constitution’s free speech provisions protected the picketers. On this point, the Court agreed with Ralph’s, ruling that the privately owned entrance area was not a public forum: “For this reason, a union’s picketing activities in such a location do not have state constitutional protection.”

Despite the fact that the entrance was private property, the court went on to rule that the union had the right to picket there under a California statute known as the Moscone Act. The Moscone Act was passed in 1975 “to promote the rights of workers to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining, picketing or protection and to prevent the evils which frequently occur when courts interfere with the normal process of dispute resolution between employers and recognized employee organizations.”2

Although other conduct may be limited on the private property, such as a protest or signature gathering, unions have special protections. “Certain activities undertaken during a labor dispute are legal and cannot be enjoined,” the court stated. These activities include peaceful picketing on private property. On the other hand, inherently dangerous acts calculated to intimidate (such as using a vehicle to intentionally obstruct non-striking employees traveling on the road) do not fall within the broad scope of the NLRA’s protections.3

Employers can still seek an injunction under the Labor Code if unlawful activity, such as violence or blocking customers’ ability to enter or exit store property, occurs. For more information, see Misconduct of Strikers. But obtaining an injunction is not an easy task. Labor Code section 11381.1 was enacted in 1999 and added requirements that businesses must meet to obtain an injunction in labor disputes. Although completely independent of the Moscone Act, the statute nonetheless restricts the court’s authority to issue injunctions in such disputes by imposing significant procedural requirements.

Witness testimony in court is required and the testimony must show that unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed unless restrained and that substantial and irreparable injury will occur. A court order can only be issued if it can be shown that public safety officers who are supposed to protect the property are unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection. These are not easy hurdles to jump.

The Ralph’s decision has seen some criticism: The court’s apparent willingness to protect one type of speech (labor) over another (non-labor) is one of many concerns with the decision. However, in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of the California Supreme Court’s decision.

1. Ralph’s Grocery Company v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8, 55 Cal.4th 1083 (2012)