TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NUMBER 769, PETITIONERS,

v.

FONTAINBLEAU HOTEL CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, RESPONDENT

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 222 So.2d 54. We granted certiorari based upon apparent conflict between the decision of the District Court in this cause and Local 675, Intern. Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. Meekins.1

The question presented is the validity of a temporary injunction issued by the Circuit Court of Dade County on October 31, 1968, enjoining the petitioner, Teamsters Local #769 from picketing the respondent, Fontainbleau Hotel.

Subsequent to the issuance of the District Court’s opinion in this cause on April 8, 1969, we have issued our opinion in Sheetmetal Workers International Ass’n, Local Union No. 223 v. Florida Heat and Power on January 7, 1970,2 clarifying and delineating the guidelines relating to those cases arising directly or indirectly from labor disputes between employers and employees. On March 9, 1970, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of International Longshoremen’s Local 1416, AFL-CIO v. Ariadne Shipping,3 relating to peaceful picketing. In that case, as here, the employees of the company being picketed did not belong to the picketing union.

*256We have carefully examined the scanty record of testimony given in the Circuit Court upon which the injunction against petitioner was based. Recognizing that the federal government has largely preempted the field of labor relations, and in view of the above cited cases, we find the record does not provide a sufficient basis for the exercise of state jurisdiction.

The state courts are not precluded from acting in this controversy within those areas authorized for state jurisdiction as designated above. The state may enjoin any misconduct falling within the limited scope of state authority.

Accordingly, the decision pf the District Court of Appeal is quashed and the injunction herein is dissolved.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.

THORN AL, L, concurs with opinion.

THORNAL, Justice

(concurring).

I concur for the reasons stated in the opinion and for those announced in Scherer & Sons, Inc. v. International Ladies' G. Workers, 142 So.2d 290 (Fla.1962).

MASON, Circuit Judge, dissents with opinion.

MASON, Circuit Judge

(dissents).

I would discharge the writ. The activities of the labor union were imminently violent and as such affronts to public order and safety. As such, they are, in my opinion, an exception to the doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction in the National Labor Relations Board. The state trial court had jurisdiction, after notice to the union, as was the case here, to enjoin acts which were conducive to violence, if continued. This was not the case of an ex parte order being entered without opportunity to the union to present evidence to contradict the claim of imminent violence presented by the employer. On the contrary, notice was given the union of the hearing and it appeared with counsel before the Court prior to the restraining order being issued, but it offered no evidence to rebut that of the employer. The record here indicates the serious possibility of violence occurring if not prevented by a restraining order issued by the Court in the exercise of the state’s police power. Under such circumstances, I do not believe that the employer should be put to the position of resorting to “selfhelp” against the pickets to try to provoke the union to charge it with an unfair labor practice in order to secure an evaluation of the picketing by the National Labor Relations Board.