Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc

Decision Date15 March 1965
Docket NumberNo. 61,61
Citation85 S.Ct. 876,13 L.Ed.2d 789,380 U.S. 255
PartiesRADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCAST TECHNICIANS LOCAL UNION 1264, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. BROADCAST SERVICE OF MOBILE, INC
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. J. R. Goldthwaite, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for petitioners.

Willis C. Darby, Jr., Mobile, Ala., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The union, Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians, challenged the Alabama Circuit Court's jurisdiction over a suit by Broadcast Service of Mobile, the corporate name of Radio Station WSIM, to restrain peaceful picketing by the union and its solicitation of advertisers aimed at persuading them to cease doing business with the station.It contended that although the annual gross receipts of WSIM are below the National Labor Relations Board's jurisdictional minimum of $100,000 per year for radio stations, WSIM is an integral part of a group of radio stations owned and operated by Charles W. Holt and the Holt Broadcasting Service and that the annual receipts of the common enterprise are in excess of $100,000, which is determinative under the Board's standards.Stating that every court has judicial power to determine its jurisdiction and that the union failed to allege 'that the appellant's (WSIM) gross business exceeded $100,000 per annum,' the Alabama Supreme Court held that the state courts had jurisdiction over WSIM's complaint.276 Ala. 93, 159 So.2d 452.We granted certiorari.379 U.S. 812, 85 S.Ct. 30, 13 L.Ed.2d 26.The judgment below must be reversed.

Although a state court may assume jurisdiction over labor disputes over which the National Labor Relations Board has, but declines 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, 84 S.Ct. 1156, 12 L.Ed.2d 172.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 considers several nominally separate business entities to be a single employer where they comprise an integrated enterprise, N.L.R.B Twenty-firstAnn.Rep. 14—15(1956).The controlling criteria, set out and elaborated in Board decisions, are interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations and common ownership.Sakrete of Northern California, Inc., 137 N.L.R.B. 1220, aff'd332 F.2d 902(C.A.9th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 961, 85 S.Ct. 649, 13 L.Ed.2d 556;Family Laundry, Inc., 121 N.L.R.B. 1619;Canton, Carp's, Inc., 125 N.L.R.B. 483;...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
300 cases
  • Argyle Realty Associates v. New York State Division of Human Rights
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 30, 2009
    ...number of its employees with those of any interrelated entities. The United States Supreme Court first adopted the single employer doctrine in the context of labor disputes brought before the NLRB in Radio & Television Technicians v Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc. (380 US 255 , 256 [1965]). As the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (hereinafter the Second Circuit) thereafter explained, the original purpose of the doctrine was “to protect the collective bargaininginterrelation of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; and (4) common ownership or financial control of the entities in question (see Radio & Television Technicians v Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 US at 256 ; Baker v Stuart Broadcasting Co., 560 F2d 389 , 392 [1977]; Arculeo v On-Site Sales & Mktg., LLC, 425 F3d 193 , 198 [2005]; see also Cook v Arrowsmith Shelburne, Inc., 69 F3d 1235 , 1240-1241 [1995]...
  • Beckwith v. International Mill Services
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • April 08, 1985
    ...court assesses the interrelations of the operations, the common management, centralized control of labor relations and common ownership or financial control existing between the parent and the subsidiary. Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Services of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256, 85 S.Ct. 876, 877, 13 L.Ed.2d 789 (1965).5 Plaintiffs have deposed both the President of IMS and the Executive Vice President of IU (who is also the Chairman of the Board...
  • Local 1264, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 20, 1965
    ...the United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this court (which had reversed the trial court) on the ground that "due regard for the federal enactment requires that state jurisdiction must yield." Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264, etc., et al. v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 85 S.Ct. 876, 1964. This decision requires reinstatement of the trial court's decree holding it was without jurisdiction of the cause and dismissing it. Therefore, the...
  • Carpenters Local Union No. 1846 of United Broth. of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO v. Pratt-Farnsworth, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • November 04, 1982
    ...invoked to combine the amount of business of two or more employers so that the whole will exceed the Board's self-imposed jurisdictional minimum. E.g., Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc. (Radio Union), 380 U.S. 255, 256, 85 S.Ct. 876, 877, 13 L.Ed.2d 789 (1965) (per curiam), quoted with approval in South Prairie Construction Co. v. Local No. 627, International Union of Operating Engineers (Peter Kiewit), 425 U.S. 800, 802the Board uses to determine the existence of single employer status are (1) interrelation of operations, (2) common management, (3) centralized control of labor relations, and (4) common ownership. Radio Union, supra, 380 U.S. at 256, 85 S.Ct. at 877; NLRB v. Don Burgess Construction Corp., 596 F.2d 378, 384 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 940, 100 S.Ct. 293, 62 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979); Sakrete, Inc. v. NLRB, 332 F.2d 902, 905 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379...
  • Get Started for Free
3 books & journal articles
  • Age discrimination
    • United States
    • Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 James Publishing Laura M. Franze, Rod Tanner
    • May 05, 2018
    ...Fifth Circuit applies the final test listed—the integrated enterprise test. See Lusk v. Foxmeyer Health Corp. , 129 F.3d 773, 777 (5th Cir. 1997). This test was first articulated by the Supreme Court in Radio Union v. Broad. Serv. , 380 U.S. 255, 257 (1965), in the context of labor disputes and then extended to civil rights actions by the Fifth Circuit in Trevino v. Celanese Corp ., 701 F.2d 397, 404 (5th Cir. 1983), reh’g denied , 707 F.2d 515 (5th...
  • Chapter 17 Discharge and Dischargeability
    • United States
    • Bankruptcy in Practice American Bankruptcy Institute
    ...501 F.2d 1145 (1st Cir. 1974).[85] For the labor law background, see NLRB Twenty-first Ann. Rep. 14 (1956), accepted in Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union v. Broadcast Serv. of Mobile Inc., 380 U.S. 255 (1965) (per curiam); see also Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168 (1973).[86] On the growth of the labor law doctrine, see, e.g., Steinbach v. Hubbard, 51 F.3d 843, 845 (9th Cir. 1995) ("[F]ederal common law successorship...
  • How a Nonunion Company Becomes Bound to a Collective Bargaining Obligation Through a Merger or Acquisition
    • United States
    • Littler on Corporate Restructuring: Employment & Labor Law Implications of Mergers, Acquisitions, Relocations, & Asset Sales Littler Mendelson
    ...that it had a “good-faith reasonable doubt” about the union’s majority status.186 --------Notes:[102] See, e.g., Radio & Television Broad. Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Servs. of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 256 (1965).[103] Southport Petroleum Co. v. NLRB, 315 U.S. 110, 102–03 (1942).[104] 315 U.S. at 116.[105] See, e.g., NLRB v. Burns Int’l Sec. Servs., Inc., 406 U.S. 272 (1972).[106] See, e.g., Johnstown Corp., 313 N.L.R.B. 182,status found); see also Roofers Local 207 Pension, Health & Accident, Annuity & Joint Apprenticeship Training Funds v. Shue Roofing, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1409, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2004) (both alter ego and successorship found).[108] 380 U.S. 255 (1965).[109] See, e.g., Grane Health Care v. NLRB, 712 F.3d 157, 150–55 (3d Cir. 2013) (enforcing an NLRB decision applying the successorship doctrine to a transfer from public to private employer in the sale of a nursing...