Union Litigation and Injunctions - Zimolong Law
337
page-template,page-template-full_width,page-template-full_width-php,page,page-id-337,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-title-hidden,qode_grid_1300,qode-content-sidebar-responsive,qode-child-theme-ver-,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.1.1,vc_responsive

The American Federation for Teachers decries Wally as “a destructive force.” Wally has served as counsel on countless labor disputes. He counsels and consults with clients on union organizing campaigns, double breasting issues, and union collection actions. He assists clients in opening projects blocked by union picket lines and the infamous union rat.  Among the clients that Wally represents is the largest merit shop real estate developer in the City of Philadelphia.

In 2015, he spearheaded a successful effort to have NLRB Region 4 Director, Dennis Walsh, suspended for violating federal law.

He refuses to accept the status quo and ferociously defend his clients’ right to use their workforce of their choice. His recent and notable cases include:

Beating a Union Grievance Action.  A union filed a grievance against Wally’s client for allegedly wrongfully terminating a union member in violation of the terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.  Before the arbitration hearing, the union demanded $175,000 in backpay and full reinstatement of the union member.  After Wally cross-examined the union member for an hour, the union agreed to settle the matter for $6000 without reinstatement of employment and fully released Wally’s client from all claims.

Defending Students at the University of Pennsylvania.  In 2017, Wally served as counsel to a group of over 500 University of Pennsylvania graduate students opposed to the unionization of graduate students. The case is pending before the NLRB.

 

Defending a Grievance Action Brought by the Teamsters.  In April 2016, Wally Zimolong was engaged by a trucking company to defend it in a grievance action brought by the Teamsters Union.  The case had been pending for several months and an arbitration was scheduled with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.  Within weeks of taking over the defense of the claim, the case settled on very favorable terms for his client.

 

Lawsuit for Breach of Collective Bargaining Agreement Against Roofers Union.  In April 2016, Wally filed a complaint against Roofers Union Local 30 in Federal Court for breach of its collective bargaining agreement and violations of Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The counterclaim alleges that the Roofers Union intentional failed to supply a signatory contractor with workers from the union hall, falsely declared his client in default of his fringe benefit obligations, and destroyed property of the client in retaliation of his client standing up to the union.

 

Lawsuit for Illegal Secondary Picketing Against Ironworkers Union.  In December 2015, Wally Zimolong filed a complaint in Federal Court against various local New York City chapters of the Ironworkers Union.  The complaint alleged that the Ironworkers illegal picketed various sites in the New York Metropolitan area, including engaging in a mass picket at a site in Manhattan that lead to the assault of his client’s employees.  After defeating the Union’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the underlying dispute soon settled.

 

Injunction Against Bricklayers Union.  In November 2015, Wally Zimolong filed a complaint on behalf of the owners of the Parker Spruce Hotel in Center City Philadelphia for injunctive relief against the Bricklayers Union and Laborers Union after representatives of both unions blocked access to the hotel.  Rather than defend the action the both unions agreed to a consent order that limits the location of their picketing and the number of picketers participating in the picketing.

 

Consent Order Against IBEW Local 98.  In December 2013, Wally Zimolong filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 98, on behalf of his client, an apartment developer.  Charges were filed after Local 98 representatives threatened the client with a race war if a Local 98 electrical contractor was not hired for the project.  Rather than defend the charges, Local 98 agreed to a consent order which prohibits Local 98 from engaging in illegal picketing on any of the client’s projects.  Since 2013, the client has not faced any threats from Local 98.