San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon

Citation353 U.S. 26,77 S.Ct. 607,1 L.Ed.2d 618
Decision Date25 March 1957
Docket NumberNo. 50,50
PartiesSAN DIEGO BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL et al., Petitioners, v. J. S. GARMON et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Mr. Charles P. Scully, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners.

Mr. James W. Archer, San Diego, Cal., for respondents.

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 employees had selected a union as their collective bargaining agent. The unions commenced peaceful picketing to enforce their demand. About a week later respondents filed suit in the Superior Court for an injunction and damages, alleging that they were in interstate commerce and that the contract sought by the unions would violate the Act.1 On the same day respondents filed with the National Labor Relations Board's regional office a petition asking that the question of the representation of their employees be resolved. The Regional Director dismissed the petition. The unions nevertheless pressed their claim that the National Board had exclusive jurisdiction.2 After a hearing the Superior Court entered an order enjoining the unions from picketing or exerting secondary pressure in support of their demand for a union shop agreement unless and until one or another of the unions had been designated as the collective bargaining representative of respondents' employees. It also awarded respondents $1,000 damages. The California Supreme Court affirmed. 3 We granted certiorari. 351 U.S. 923, 76 S.Ct. 782. Recognizing that respondents' business affected interstate commerce, it concluded that the Board's declination, in pursuance of its announced jurisdictional policy, to handle respondents' representation petition left the state courts free to act. 4 On the merits the court said:

'The assertion of economic pressure to compel an employer to sign the type of agreement here involved is an unfair labor practice under section 8(b)(2) of the (National Labor relations) act. * * * Concerted labor activities for such a purpose thus were unlawful under the federal statute, and for that reason were not privileged under the California law.'5

What we have said in Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 598, and Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Etc. v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., 353 U.S. 20, 77 S.Ct. 604, is applicable here, and those cases control this one in its major aspects. Respondents, however, argue that the award of damages must be sustained under United Construction Workers, etc. v. Laburnum Construction Corp., 347 U.S. 656, 74 S.Ct. 833, 98 L.Ed. 1025. We do not reach this question. The California Supreme Court leaves us in doubt, but its opinion indicates that it felt bound to 'apply' or in some sense follow federal law in this case. There is, of course, no such compulsion. Laburnum sustained an award of damages under state tort law for violent conduct. We cannot know that the California could would have interpreted its own state law to allow an award of damages in this different situation. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the Supreme Court of California for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion and the opinions in Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, supra, and Amalgamated Meat...

To continue reading

Request your trial
106 cases
  • State v. Local 1115 Joint Bd., Nursing Home and Hospital Emp. Division
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 14, 1977
    ...opinion cited was written the second time that case came before the Supreme Court of the United States. Previously, in 353 U.S. 26, 77 S.Ct. 607, 1 L.Ed.2d 618, the Supreme Court had reversed the California Supreme Court, which had affirmed an award of both injunctive relief and damages. Th......
  • City Line Open Hearth, Inc. v. Hotel, Motel and Club Emp. Union Local No. 568, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1964
    ... ... 284, 77 S.Ct. 1166, 1 L.Ed.2d 1347 (1957); Building ... Service Emp. Intern Union Local 262 v. Gazzam, 339 ... 354, 359, ... 79 S.Ct. 844, 3 L.Ed.2d 872; San Diego Bldg. Trades ... Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, ... ...
  • Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1984
    ...Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co., 264 U.S. 109, 120, 44 S.Ct. 274, 275, 68 L.Ed. 582 (1924); see also San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U.S. 26, 77 S.Ct. 607, 1 L.Ed.2d 618 (1957). In others, in contrast, the state court may construe state law broadly in the belief that federal law......
  • International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Russell
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1958
    ...decision of this question is not essential in the instant case, we do not pass upon it. 6. See, e.g., San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U.S. 26, 77 S.Ct. 607, 1 L.Ed.2d 618 (involving state injunction of peaceful picketing); Amalagamated Meat Cutters, etc. v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Preemption Choice: The Theory, Law, and Reality of Federalism's Core Question.
    • United States
    • Constitutional Commentary Vol. 26 No. 3, June 2010
    • June 22, 2010
    ...See Lodge 76, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists v. Wis. Employment Relations Comm'n, 427 U.S. 132 (1976); S.D. Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U.S. 26 (1957). If polyphonists were to consider these doctrines (which they do not), they might come to question the facile assumption that firm (ceili......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT