353 U.S. 26 (1957), 50, San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon

Docket Nº:No. 50
Citation:353 U.S. 26, 77 S.Ct. 607, 1 L.Ed.2d 618
Party Name:San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon
Case Date:March 25, 1957
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 26

353 U.S. 26 (1957)

77 S.Ct. 607, 1 L.Ed.2d 618

San Diego Building Trades Council



No. 50

United States Supreme Court

March 25, 1957

Argued January 16, 1957



Respondents operate two retail lumber yards in California, and annually buy from outside the State about $250,000 worth of material for resale. Petitioner unions asked respondents to sign a labor contract including a union shop provision, though the unions had not been selected by a majority of respondents' employees as their bargaining agents. Respondents refused to sign, and the unions commenced peaceful picketing and secondary pressure to enforce their demand. Respondents petitioned the National Labor Relations Board to settle the question of representation of their employees, but the Regional Director dismissed the petition. The Board had not entered into an agreement under § 10(a) of the Act ceding jurisdiction to the State. On complaint of respondents, a state court enjoined the unions from picketing or exerting secondary pressure to enforce their demands, and awarded damages to respondents.


1. The National Labor Relations Board had exclusive jurisdiction of the labor dispute, and the state court was without jurisdiction to enjoin the picketing or the secondary pressure. Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, ante, p. 1; Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., ante, p. 20. Pp. 27-28.

2. Since the state court, in awarding damages, may have felt that it was bound to apply federal law, which it was not, and it is impossible to know how it would have applied its own state law on this point, the case is remanded for further proceedings on that point. P. 29.

45 Cal.2d 657, 291 P.2d 1, judgment vacated and cause remanded.

Page 27

WARREN, J., lead opinion

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondents are a partnership, operating two retail lumber yards in San Diego County, California. In the year before this proceeding began, they purchased more than $250,000 worth of material from outside of California for resale at retail. Petitioner unions asked them to sign a contract including a union shop provision. Respondents refused on the ground that it would be a violation of the National Labor Relations Act to sign such a contract before a majority of their...

To continue reading