Wal Mart Stores v. United Food & Commercial Workers
Annotate this CaseAfter the trial court issued a permanent injunction barring the union from conducting demonstrations inside stores owned by Walmart, the union appealed. The union asserts that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq., “arguably prohibits” the union’s challenged conduct, triggering preemption. The court concluded that the trespass action here is not preempted because the "local interest" exception applies. The court also concluded that Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters governs this case. The court rejected the union’s contention that the local interest exception only applies to violent trespass and concluded that a trespass claim may fit within the local interest exception to preemption. In this case, the court concluded that the controversies are not identical. The court explained that adjudicating the trespass claim was entirely unconnected to any balancing of employee rights under the NLRA, or a policy decision about the best way to avoid or minimize industrial strife. This trespass case, like Sears, turned on the location of the union’s conduct, rather than its objective, purpose, or effect. Moreover, shared factual allegations in the unfair labor practice charge and the complaint do not require the court to conclude the controversies are identical. Finally, the authorities the union relies upon to support its preemption argument do not mandate a contrary result. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.