Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of the United States
January 20, 1959, Argued ; April 20, 1959, Decided
[*237] [***778] [**775] MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion [****3] of the Court.
This case is before us for the second time. The present litigation began with a dispute between the petitioning unions and respondents, co-partners in the business of selling lumber and other materials in California. Respondents began an action in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego, asking for an injunction and damages. Upon hearing, the trial court found the following facts. In March of 1953 the unions sought from respondents an agreement to retain in their employ only those workers who were already members of the unions, or who applied for membership within thirty days. Respondents refused, claiming that none of their employees had shown a desire to join a union, and that, in any event, they could not accept such an arrangement until one of the unions had been designated by the employees as a collective bargaining agent. The unions began at once peacefully to picket the respondents' place of business, and to exert pressure on customers and suppliers in order to persuade them to stop dealing with respondents. The sole purpose of these pressures was to compel execution [***779] of the proposed contract. The unions contested this finding, claiming [****4] that the only purpose of their activities was to educate the workers and persuade them to become members. On the basis of its findings, the court enjoined the unions from picketing and from the use of other pressures to force an agreement, until one of [*238] them had been properly designated as a collective bargaining agent. The court also awarded $ 1,000 damages for losses found to have been sustained.
At the time the suit in the state court was started, respondents had begun a representation proceeding before the National Labor Relations Board. The Regional Director declined jurisdiction, presumably because the amount of interstate commerce involved did not meet [**776] the Board's monetary standards in taking jurisdiction.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
359 U.S. 236 *; 79 S. Ct. 773 **; 3 L. Ed. 2d 775 ***; 1959 U.S. LEXIS 1819 ****; 37 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P65,367; 43 L.R.R.M. 2838
SAN DIEGO BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL ET AL. v. GARMON ET AL.
Prior History: [****1] CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
Disposition: 49 Cal. 2d 595, 320 P. 2d 473, reversed.
Relations, regulation, damages, cases, unfair labor practice, pre-emption, injunction, violence, enjoin, industrial relations, state jurisdiction, state power, redress, courts
Civil Procedure, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, General Overview, Labor & Employment Law, Collective Bargaining & Labor Relations, Federal Preemption, Constitutional Law, Supremacy Clause, Business & Corporate Compliance, Unfair Labor Practices, Employer Violations, Interference With Protected Activities, Jurisdiction