Skip to content


Hattiesburg Unions Vs. Broome Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number377 U.S. 126
AppellantHattiesburg Unions
RespondentBroome Co.
Excerpt:
.....court hattiesburg unions v. broome co., 377 u.s. 126 (1964) hattiesburg building & trades council v. broome no. 669 decided april 27, 1964 377 u.s. 126 on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of mississippi syllabus state court had no jurisdiction to enjoin the arguably unfair labor practice of union picketing at a secondary employer's premise, since the national labor relations board had jurisdiction, its standards being satisfied by reference to the operation of either the primary or, as here, the secondary, employer. certiorari granted: 247 miss. 458, 153 so.2d 695, reversed. per curiam. after finding that the primary employer was not in commerce and ruling that the preemption rule of san.....
Judgment:
Hattiesburg Unions v. Broome Co. - 377 U.S. 126 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court Hattiesburg Unions v. Broome Co., 377 U.S. 126 (1964)

Hattiesburg Building & Trades Council v. Broome

No. 669

Decided April 27, 1964

377 U.S. 126

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

Syllabus

State court had no jurisdiction to enjoin the arguably unfair labor practice of union picketing at a secondary employer's premise, since the National Labor Relations board had jurisdiction, its standards being satisfied by reference to the operation of either the primary or, as here, the secondary, employer.

Certiorari granted: 247 Miss. 458, 153 So.2d 695, reversed.

PER CURIAM.

After finding that the primary employer was not in commerce and ruling that the preemption rule of San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 , 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 23 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

Page 377 U. S. 127

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 ; Construction Laborers v. Curry, 371 U. S. 542 . Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment is reversed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //