HEALTH v.UNITE
HERE
Filed 7/21/10
CERTIFIED
FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Placer)
----
SUTTER HEALTH et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
UNITE HERE,
Defendant and Appellant.
C054400
(Super.Ct.No. SCV17938)
STORY CONTINUE
FROM PART I….
D
Having determined that the trial court erred in refusing to give
the requested actual malice instruction, we must decide whether the error was
prejudicial.
â€
| Description | In an effort to force a nationwide laundry company to employ only union members and to improve their working conditions, a labor union commenced a campaign utilizing a variation of a technique known as secondary picketing. The campaign was directed at a group of hospitals that used the services of the laundry company. The union mailed postcards to prospective clients of the hospitals, warning them that the hospitals had their laundry cleaned by a company that did not ensure the cleaned linens would be free of blood, feces, and other harmful pathogens. The postcards were intended to (1) dissuade people from using the hospitals because of the laundry company's shortcomings, thus (2) put pressure on the hospitals to stop using the laundry company's services, which would (3) persuade the laundry company to agree to the union's demands in order to avoid the loss of the hospitals' business. The hospitals fought back. Armed with evidence that their inspection control and linen handling policies ensured the delivery of hygienically clean laundry to all their patients, but that the union's postcard campaign had caused fewer patients to use the hospitals, the hospitals sued the union for defamation, trade libel, and intentional interference with prospective economic relations. |
| Rating |
