Hattiesburg Building and Trades Council v. Broome

• Decision Date: 27 April 1964
• Docket Number: No. 669,669
• Citation: 84 S.Ct. 1156,12 L.Ed.2d 172,377 U.S. 126
• Parties: HATTIESBURG BUILDING AND TRADES COUNCIL et al. v. J. D. BROOME, etc., et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

377 U.S. 126

84 S.Ct. 1156

12 L.Ed.2d 172

HATTIESBURG BUILDING AND TRADES COUNCIL et al.

v. J. D. BROOME, etc., et al.

No. 669.

Decided April 27, 1964.

Ralph N. Jackson, for petitioners.

Richard C. Keenan, for respondents.

Solicitor General Cox, Arnold Ordman, Dominick L. Manoli and Norton J. Come, for the United States, as amicus curiae.

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, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775, 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 2o 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, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775; Local No. 438 Construction and General Laborers' Union AFL—CIO v. Curry, 371 U.S. 542, 83 S.Ct. 531, 9 L.Ed.2d 514. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed.