Court Grants Summary Judgment to Union on Employer’s Secondary Boycott Claims

In Precise Materials, Inc. v. Teamsters Local 135, the Employer asserted claims against the Union under Section 303 of LMRA for secondary boycott activity, as well as state law claims of Intentional Interference with Business Relationships and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. David Vlink represented the Union, Teamsters Local 135.

            The Court found that the Employer’s state law claims were pre-empted by federal law. The Court dismissed the secondary boycott claims because there was no evidence that the Union “threatened, coerced, or restrained” secondary employers with the object of forcing them to cease doing business with the Employer.

            The Court’s decision can be found here.