Ralphs Goes to Court to Stop Boycott : Union Counters by Having Suit Shifted to U.S. Jurisdiction

Seeking to halt a boycott of its stores by union members, Ralphs Grocery Co. filed a lawsuit Friday in Orange County seeking $20 million in punitive damages and an order to halt random picketing.

But eight union locals representing about 8,000 of the company’s 12,000 workers were able to win a transfer of the suit from the state to the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles before a state court commissioner could rule on the store’s request for an order temporarily stopping the boycott.

Loss of Customers

Ralphs now must file new papers in federal court next week to get a hearing on its request for a temporary halt to the boycott until the suit is resolved.

“We don’t know how many customers they’ve turned away----there’s no way to ascertain that. We only know it’s a substantial number,” said Thomas S. Kerrigan, attorney for Ralphs.

Kerrigan accused the United Food and Commercial Workers Union of maneuvering the case into federal court “to keep any judge from ruling on this issue.” He said both sides have usually used state courts in numerous lawsuits filed in the last year or so.

But union lawyers charged that Ralphs was “forum shopping” in an attempt to find a judge willing to rule on an issue that a federal judge already said must go to arbitration.

“We sued in federal court in April to enjoin Ralphs from violating the contract by cutting wages and laying off people,” said Laurence D. Steinsapir, a lawyer for the Los Angeles, San Diego and two other union locals. “He urged us to go to arbitration, which is what we’re doing now.”

Claims, Counterclaims

Union lawyers pointed out that Kerrigan agreed in his court papers that the federal court also had jurisdiction of the suit under federal labor laws. The unions have the right under court procedure to “remove” or transfer a case from state to federal courts when issues involve federal law.

Union officials have said that Ralphs, one of the largest retail food chains in Southern California, had laid off or demoted 1,800 workers since early 1984 in violation of its contract. The union claimed the company was replacing veteran employees with younger, less experienced workers who earn lower salaries.

Ralphs contends that it laid off only 173 workers, though many others have been shifted to lower-paying positions. The company says its actions are legal under the contract and are needed to cut labor costs and remain competitive.

Both sides began an arbitration this week over the union’s claim that the company was violating the contract.

The suit by Ralphs alleges that the union is violating the contract by spearheading a $1-million boycott effort that includes pickets and leaflets urging customers to shop elsewhere. The company cites a no-strike and no-boycott clause in the 3-year contract, which was signed last year.

But union lawyers point out that the clause contains an exception if one party “refuses to perform any obligation” under the contract. And the union has been contending that the layoffs and demotions constitute a failure by the company to perform an obligation--a contract violation.

Besides, pointed out Robert W. Gilbert, attorney for the Orange County local, the National Labor Relations Board has filed complaints against Ralphs over alleged unfair labor practices involving its Orange County and San Diego stores. The pickets, he said, have a right to inform the public of those complaints.