SAN DIEGO Bldg. TRADES COUNCIL v. GARMON - 359 U.S. 236, 79 S. Ct. 773 (1959)

Rule:

Courts are not primary tribunals to adjudicate issues under §§ 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 157, 158. It is essential to the administration of the Act that these determinations be left in the first instance to the National Labor Relations Board. What is outside the scope of the Supreme Court's authority cannot remain within a State's power and state jurisdiction too must yield to the exclusive primary competence of the Board.

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. Consequently, respondents filed an action in state court seeking an injunction and damages against the unions. Respondents had also begun proceedings before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), but the NLRB declined jurisdiction. The superior court enjoined the unions from picketing and awarded respondents damages. The state supreme court affirmed the judgment. The United States Supreme Court remanded, holding that the refusal of the NLRB to assert jurisdiction did not leave the state power over activities they were otherwise pre-empted from regulating. On remand, the state supreme court set aside the injunction but sustained the damages. After deciding that the state had jurisdiction to award damages for injuries caused by the union’s activities, the state supreme court held that those activities constituted a tort based on an unfair labor practice under state law. In so holding the court relied on general tort provisions of the California Civil Code, §§ 1677, 1708, as well as state enactments dealing specifically with labor relations. The U.S. Supreme Court again granted certiorari.

Issue:

Did the state court have jurisdiction to award damages arising out of peaceful union activity which it could not enjoin?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the state court did not have jurisdiction to award damages arising out of a peaceful union activity that it could not enjoin. The court ruled that because the NLRB had not adjudicated the alleged unfair labor practices for which the state sought to give a remedy in damages and because the alleged unfair labor practices fell within the purview of §§ 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.S. §§ 157, 158, the State's jurisdiction was misplaced.