Hattiesburg Unions v. Broome Co.
377 U.S. 126 (1964)

Annotate this Case

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.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.