San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U.S. 26 (1957). · Go Syfert
Search
San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U.S. 26 (1957). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
316 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 45 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Smith v. Evening News Association (mich, 1961-05-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1957 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1957 1991 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Evening News Association
Mich. · 1961 · confidence medium
In vacating and remanding the judgment of the California court (San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 US 26, 12 [ 77 S Ct 607, 609 , 1 L ed 2d 618, 608]) the United States supreme court pointed out that the Guss and Fairlawn Cases involved relief of an equitable nature and controlled the injunctive question, but remanded to the State court the question of whether the judgment for damages would be sustained under California law.
discussed Cited "see" Devin Sejas v. County of Los Angeles
C.D. Cal. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 26 623, 627 (1957) (the Government privilege encourages citizens to communicate 27 their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law-enforcement officials by 28 preserving their anonymity). 2 Case 2:21-cv-07553-DSF-GJS Document 20 Filed 02/09/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:161 1 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 2 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 3 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 4 parties are permitted reasonable nec…
discussed Cited "see" Richard Lugo v. County of Los Angeles
C.D. Cal. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 26 623, 627 (1957) (the Government privilege encourages citizens to communicate 27 their knowledge of the commission of crimes to law-enforcement officials by 28 preserving their anonymity) 1 Furthermore, in order to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 2 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 3 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 4 ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 5 connection with this action, to address t…
examined Cited "see" Ocean Logistics Management, Inc. v. NPR, INC. (3×)
D.P.R. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U.S. 26 , 77 S.Ct. 607 , 1 L.Ed.2d 618 (1957); Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Bd., 353 U.S. 1 , 77 S.Ct. 598 , 1 L.Ed.2d 601 (1957); Meat Cutters Local 427 v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., 353 U.S. 20 , 77 S.Ct. 604 , 1 L.Ed.2d 613 (1957).
discussed Cited "see" De Canas v. Bica
SCOTUS · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See Part III, infra. 7 In finding § 2805 pre-empted by the INA, the Court of Appeal cited Guss v. Utah Labor Board, 353 U. S. 1 (1957), and San Diego Unions v. Garmon, 353 U. S. 26 (1957), and 359 U. S. 236 (1959) as controlling authority.
discussed Cited "see" Blum v. INTERNATIONAL ASS'N OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO. (2×)
N.J. · 1964 · signal: see · confidence high
See 353 U.S. 26 , 77 S.Ct. 607 , 1 L.Ed. 2 d 618 (1957); Guss v. Utah L.R.B., 353 U.S. 1 , 77 S.Ct. 598, 609 , 1 L.Ed. 2 d 601 (1957).
examined Cited "see" Blum v. International Ass'n of Machinists (3×)
unknown court · 1964 · signal: see · confidence high
See 353 U. S. 26 , 77 S. Ct. 607 , 1 L.
discussed Cited "see" Ex Parte Dilley (2×)
Tex. · 1960 · signal: see · confidence high
See San Diego Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U.S. 26 , 1 L.
examined Cited "see" Lavery's Main Street Grill, Inc. v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees-Bartenders Union Local 288 (3×)
Conn. · 1959 · signal: see · confidence high
See San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U.S. 26, 29 , 77 S. Ct. 607 , 1 L.
discussed Cited "see" Fred G. Hodges Bedding Co. v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
Pa. · 1957 · signal: see · confidence high
The question thus raised is no longer an open one: see P. S. Cuss etc. v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U. S. 1 , and companion cases, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., 353 U. S. 20 , and San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U. S. 26 (all handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States March 25, 1957).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C. (2×)
SCOTUS · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e. g., United Air Lines, Inc. v. Mahin, 410 U. S. 623, 630-632 (1973); State Tax Comm'n v. Van Cott, 306 U. S. 511, 513-515 (1939); Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co., 264 U. S. 109, 120 (1924); see also San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U. S. 26 (1957).
examined Cited "see, e.g." State of Maryland v. Wirtz (6×)
D. Maryland · 1967 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U.S. 26 , 77 S.Ct. 607 , 1 L.Ed.2d 618 (1957); Amalgamated Meat Cutters, etc., Local No. 427, AFL v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., 353 U.S. 20 , 77 S.Ct. 604 (1957).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Russell
SCOTUS · 1958 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., San Diego Council v. Garmon, 353 U. S. 26 (involving state injunction of peaceful picketing); Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., 353 U. S. 20, 23 (same); United Mine Workers v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co., 351 U. S. 62, 75 (same); Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485, 498-500 (same); Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, 475-476, 479-481 (involving state injunction of a strike and peaceful picketing); Bus Employees v. Wisconsin Board, 340 U. S. 383, 394-395, 398-399 (involving state statute restricting right to strike of, and compelling arbitration by, publ…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
SAN DIEGO BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL Et Al.
v.
GARMON Et Al.
50.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 25, 1957.
353 U.S. 26
Charles P. Scully argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Walter Wencke, Mathew O. Tobriner and John C. Stevenson., James W. Archer argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was J. Sterling Hutcheson., Solicitor General Rankin, Theophil C. Kammholz, Stephen Leonard and Dominick L. Manoli filed a brief for the National Labor Relations Board, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance., Herbert B. Cohen, Attorney General, and Oscar Bort-ner, Assistant Attorney General, filed a brief for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as amicus curiae.
Warren, Whittaker.
Cited by 131 opinions  |  Published
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[*28] 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. 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, ante, p. 1, and Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., ante, p. 20, is applicable here, and those cases control this one in its major aspects.[*29] Respondents, however, argue that the award of damages must be sustained under United Construction Workers v. Laburnum Construction Corp., 347 U. S. 656. 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 court 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 Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., supra.

[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Burton, joined by Mr. Justice Clark, see ante, p. 12.]

Vacated and remanded.

Mr. Justice Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
1

Section 8 (a) (3) allows an employer to enter into a union security agreement of the type petitioners here were seeking only if the union is the bargaining representative of his employees. 61 Stat. 140, 29' ü. S. O. § 168 (a) (3).

2

They also maintained that by not appealing the regional director’s decision respondents had failed to exhaust their remedies under the National Act. On our view of the case, we need not consider this contention.

4

Petitioners’ interstate purchases fall below the standards for retail stores. See Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., ante, p. 23, n. 4. The Board draws no distinction in the application of its jurisdictional standards between representation and unfair labor practice cases. C. A. Braukman, 94 N. L. R. B. 1609, 1611.