Labor & Employment Law - U.S. Practice
Labor Dispute Litigation

Crowell & Moring LLP's Labor area has represented leading US companies in many complex and difficult labor disputes. Our recent experience includes:

Our lawyers have extensive experience in combating corporate campaigns and unlawful secondary boycotts instituted by unions. We recently represented a leading, nationwide security company in its fight against a corporate campaign instituted by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The SEIU unlawfully targeted our client's customers as part of its corporate campaign. We filed unfair labor practice charges against the SEIU, and instituted federal court litigation, to protect the rights of our client and its customers. As a result of the NLRB charge, and collateral federal court litigation, we were able to achieve a favorable settlement that imposed significant restrictions upon the SEIU and its ability to wage an effective corporate campaign.
Our lawyers also led a nationwide litigation effort in response to a boycott instigated by the International Longshoremen's Union against companies doing business with the former Soviet Union. Our lawyers represented the employer before the Supreme Court, leading to a Supreme Court decision that held that the Taft Hartley Act's secondary boycott provisions extended to the union's activity.
We currently represent a prominent chemical manufacturer in aggressive and protracted successor contract negotiations with PACE, in which our lawyers assist the employer in instituting a lawful pre-impasse lockout in support of the employer's bargaining demands.
We defended a nationwide bus company in massive litigation before the National Labor Relations Board, eventually ending the litigation and a related violent nationwide strike on contract and settlement terms very favorable to the employer. Because the strike had forced the employer to seek bankruptcy protection, we also defended against alleged unfair labor practices in the bankruptcy court and convinced that court that the company's conduct was fully lawful and that no backpay would be due. As a direct result of that finding, the company was able to reorganize in bankruptcy and weather the strike to its successful conclusion after three years.
We represented a large chemical producer in a lengthy labor dispute with the Steelworkers in negotiations for a successor collective bargaining agreement; the dispute involved a six-month lockout, NLRB and collateral state court litigation. Following the lockout, the Union accepted essentially the same contract terms that had been offered prior to the work stoppage.
We represented a leading natural resources company in NLRB and federal court injunction litigation growing out of a plant closure during "first contract" negotiations.
Our lawyers have been at the forefront of shaping the law of labor law injunctions in favor of employers. Examples include the scope of injunctive relief available to employers in wildcat strike situations, see Westmoreland Coal Company v. UMWA, 910 F.2d 130 (4th Cir. 1990), and the appropriate uses of injunctive relief pending arbitration of disputes covered by a collective bargaining agreement. NHEU v. Occidental Chemical Corporation, 935 F.2d 1370 (2nd Cir. 1991).
We represented a major telecommunications company on labor law matters, including several labor injunction litigation matters to deal with picket line violence.
We are experienced in labor law preemption litigation. We have successfully asserted federal labor law preemption of State action that interferes with collective bargaining on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. See Associated Builders and Contractors, Golden Gate Chapter Inc. v. Baca, 769 F.Supp. 1537 (N.D. Cal. 1991), aff'd, Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Bragdon, 64 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 1995).