When warned by St. Peter that his threat of picketing Blue Cross constituted prohibited secondary activity, Coleman brazenly responded that he didn’t care. But there is more evidence from which this Court easily can infer an intent to exert unlawful pressure. During his deposition, Bouthillette explained that Lima, also an authorized agent of Local 254, told him during a recorded phone conversation that Local 254 would contact Blue Cross in order to sabotage Intercity’s relationship if the cleaning company did not accede to the union’s wishes. This testimony is bolstered by the transcriptions of those calls. Bouthillette’s conversation with Lima provides insight into Local 254’s reasons for calling St. Peter and corroborates St. Peter’s statement. See Abreen Corp., 709 F.2d at 756 (<HOLDING>). The evidence presented by plaintiff is not
holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union holding that a union officials comments may be used to infer the object of union activity holding that a rico action by union members was properly dismissed where any financial improprieties occurred with union funds and directly injured solely the union recognizing that the involvement of supervisory union members in union affairs conflicts with the need to assure the complete devotion of union negotiating teams to employee interests