When used in this chapter, except sections
31-120 and
31-121:
(a) A case shall be held to involve or to grow out of a labor dispute when the case involves persons who are engaged in the same industry, trade, craft or occupation, or have direct or indirect interests therein, or who are employees of the same employer, or who are members of the same or an affiliated organization of employers or employees, whether such dispute is (1) between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employees or associations of employees, (2) between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employers or associations of employers, or (3) between one or more employees or associations of employees and one or more employees or associations of employees, or when the case involves any conflicting or competing interests in a labor dispute of persons participating or interested therein;
(b) A person or association shall be held to be a person participating or interested in a labor dispute if relief is sought against him or it, and if he or it is engaged in the same industry, trade, craft or occupation in which such dispute occurs, or has a direct or indirect interest therein, or is a member, officer or agent of any association composed in whole or in part of employers or employees engaged in such industry, trade, craft or occupation;
(c) The term “labor dispute” includes any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment or concerning employment relations, or any controversy arising out of the respective interest of employer and employee, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.
(1949 Rev., S. 7408.)
Cited. 148 C. 568; 164 C. 446; 183 C. 235; 186 C. 247; 190 C. 371; 201 C. 685; 213 C. 807.
Cited. 34 CS 157.
Cited. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 378.
Notes of Decisions
Hartford Div. v. Amalgamated Local Union 376, 461 A.2d 422 (Conn. 1983).
· cites it 2× “II Propriety of Issuing the Injunction We now turn to the issue of whether the trial court erred in concluding that Emhart had satisfied its burden pursuant to General Statutes §§ 31-114 and 31-115. We begin by noting the various constraints placed upon the judiciary by the…”
Connecticut Co. v. Div. 425, 164 A.2d 413 (Conn. 1960).
· cites it 4× “On October 7, 1959, the defendants amended their answer and alleged that a controversy existed between them and the plaintiff which constituted a labor dispute under General Statutes § 31-112 (c) and that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to issue an injunction by…”
Waterbury Hosp. v. Connecticut Health Care Assocs., 440 A.2d 310 (Conn. 1982).
· cites it 2× “On that same date, after a hearing at which counsel for the defendants were present, the court issued a temporary restraining order against each of the defendants pursuant to General Statutes § 31-112 et seq. On November 20, a hearing to show cause why a temporary injunction…”
Ceui v. Csea, 183 Conn. 235 (1981).
· cites it 8× “[10] The court concluded that the matter was not a "labor dispute" under General Statutes § 31-112 and was not governed by our so-called "little Norris-LaGuardia Act" (i.”
Rustici v. Malloy, 758 A.2d 424 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000).
· cites it 3× “” 6 Furthermore, “General Statutes § 31-115 7 sets forth five facts that the trial court must find to exist before it may grant injunctive relief in a labor dispute.”
United Pub. Serv. Employees Union v. Hamden, 267 A.3d 239 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 2× “General Statutes § 31-112 (c) defines ‘‘ ‘labor dispute’ ’’ to include ‘‘any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or…”
Anaconda Co. v. United Auto., 382 A.2d 544 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1977).
“The case involves a labor dispute within the meaning of § 31-112 of the General Statutes. It is the defendants’ contention that under Connecticut law the court is powerless to restrain picketing so long as the picketing is peaceful and there is no evidence of violence.”
Venetucci v. Salvino, 568 A.2d 794 (Conn. 1989).
· cites it 2× “The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court is granted, limited to the following issue: “Is the controversy between the defendant and her former employer concerning the interpretation and enforcement of a covenant not to compete a ‘labor…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.