HATTIESBURG BUILDING & TRADES COUNCIL ET AL.
v.
BROOME, DOING BUSINESS AS BROOME CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE CO., ET AL.

U.S. | 1964-04-27
No. 669
377 U.S. 126 Supreme Court of the United States (1964) Caution
Also reported at: 12 L. Ed. 2d 172 · 84 S. Ct. 1156 · 1964 U.S. LEXIS 2240 · SCDB 1963-106
Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A state court enjoined union picketing at a secondary employer's premises after finding the primary employer was not engaged in commerce and therefore not subject to National Labor Relations Board jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the NLRB's jurisdictional standards can be satisfied by examining either the primary or secondary employer's business operations, and because the secondary employer's operations met those standards, the union's picketing activities were arguably an unfair labor practice preempted from state court jurisdiction under federal labor law.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

After finding that the primary employer was not in commerce and ruling that the pre-emption rule of San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, was therefore not applicable, the state court enjoined picketing at the premises of the secondary employer. The judgment must be reversed. The jurisdictional standards established by the National Labor Relations Board (see 23 N.

L. R.

B. Ann. Rep. 8 (1958)) may be satisfied by reference to the business operations of either the primary or the secondary employer. Truck Drivers Local No. 649, 93 N.

L. R. B. 386; Teamsters Local No. 554, 110 N.

L. R. B. 1769; Madison Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, 134 N.

L. R. B.

517. Here, as the record clearly shows, the secondary employer’s operations met the jurisdictional requirements. Since the union’s activities in this case were arguably an unfair labor practice, Sailors’ Union of the Pacific, 92 N.

L. R. B. 547, the state court had no jurisdiction to issue the injunction. San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236; Construction Laborers v. Curry, 371 U. S.

542.

Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Radio & Television Broad. Technicians Local Union 1264, Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Broad. Serv. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255 (U.S. 1965)
    …s to assert, jurisdiction, 29 U. S. C. §§ 164 (c)(1) and (2) (1958 ed., Supp. V), there must be a proper determination of whether the case is actually one of those which the Board will decline to hear. Hattiesburg Building Trades Council v. Broome, 377 U. S. 126. The Board will assert jurisdiction over an employer operating a radio station if his gross receipts equal or exceed $100,000 per year, Raritan Valley Broadcasting Co., 122 N. L. R. B. 90, and in determining the relevant employer, the Board conside…
  • Hanna Mining Co. v. Dist. 2, Marine Eng'rs Beneficial Ass'n, AFL-CIO, 382 U.S. 181 (U.S. 1965)
    …lving secondary pressure wielded to impose representation on unwilling supervisors, finds itself at that far comer of labor law where, as we have shown, federal occupation is at a minimum and state power at a peak. Hattiesburg Unions v. Broome Co., 377 U. S. 126, cited to us by MEBA, may illustrate this concern. There, the union’s organizational picketing at a common situs was enjoined by the State because its objective violated state law. In urging that the picketing’s possible violation of § 8 (b) (4) (B)…
  • Am. Radio Assn., Afl-Cio v. Mobile S.S. Assn., Inc., 419 U.S. 215 (U.S. 1974)
    …res and shippers does not convert into “commerce” activities which plainly were not such in Windward. Our dissenting Brethren contend that our disposition is inconsistent with the Court’s decision in Hattiesburg Building & Trades Council v. Broome, 377 U. S. 126 (1964), and with the Board’s decision in Sailors’ Union of the Pacific (Moore Dry Dock), 92 N. L. R. B. 547 (1950). Hattiesburg dealt with the quite different question of applying the Board’s own limitation of its statutory jurisdiction to those cas…
    1 / 3

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw