Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 23
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1322 (2026)

Unlawful picketing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. It is unlawful for a labor organization to picket any establishment unless there exists between the employer and the majority of employees of such establishment a bona fide dispute regarding wages or working conditions.

B. It is unlawful for a labor organization to engage in picketing or to induce others to engage in picketing if the purpose of the picketing is to coerce or induce an employer or self-employed person to join or contribute to a labor organization.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1957–2013 · leading case: United Food & Com. Workers Local 99 v. Bennett, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Ariz. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United Food & Com. Workers Local 99 v. Bennett, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Ariz. 2013). · cites it 46× “Their self-censorship resulting from this fear is a constitutionally recognized injury-in-fact.”
Baldwin v. Arizona Flame Restaurant, Inc., 313 P.2d 759 (Ariz. 1957). · cites it 8× “1939 (section 23-1322, A.R.S.) and enjoinable. The trial court disregarded *390 defendant union's tender to irrevocably renounce the "hiring hall" and "joint examining board" provisions of the proposed collective bargaining contract (exhibit 9), which the court had since the…”
United Farm Workers Nat'l Union v. Babbitt, 449 F. Supp. 449 (D. Ariz. 1978). · cites it 4× “The same "right to free discussion" is abridged, and it is not outweighed by the State's interest in protecting the secondary employer since the existence of a primary dispute has no relation to whether the secondary employer is being subjected to economic coercion. See also:…”
Int'l Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Local No. 857 v. Todd L. Storms Constr. Co., 324 P.2d 1002 (Ariz. 1958). · cites it 6× “constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assemblage as guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Arizona and of the United States; that the picketing was solely to publicize the facts relative to the wage scales and working conditions prevailing in plaintiff's…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1322(A): 1 case
United Food & Com. Workers Local 99 v. Bennett, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Ariz. 2013). “Their self-censorship resulting from this fear is a constitutionally recognized injury-in-fact.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-1322(B): 1 case
United Food & Com. Workers Local 99 v. Bennett, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Ariz. 2013). “Their self-censorship resulting from this fear is a constitutionally recognized injury-in-fact.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.