Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 31 — LABOR · Chapter 562 — Labor Disputes
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-113 (2025)

Jurisdiction

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No court shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute to prohibit any person or persons participating or interested in such dispute from doing, whether singly or in concert, any of the following acts: (a) Ceasing or refusing to perform any work or to remain in any relation of employment; (b) becoming or remaining a member of any labor organization or of any employer organization; (c) paying or giving to, or withholding from, any person participating or interested in such labor dispute any strike or unemployment benefits or insurance, or other moneys or things of value; (d) by all lawful means aiding any person participating or interested in any labor dispute who is being proceeded against in, or is prosecuting, any action or suit in any court of the United States or of any state; (e) giving publicity to the existence of, or the facts involved in, any labor dispute, whether by advertising, speaking or patrolling or by any other lawful method; (f) assembling peaceably to act or to organize to act in promotion of their interests in a labor dispute; (g) advising or notifying any person of an intention to do any of the acts hereinbefore specified; (h) agreeing with other persons to do or not to do any of the acts hereinbefore specified; and (i) advising or urging or otherwise causing or inducing by any lawful method the acts hereinbefore specified.

(1949 Rev., S. 7409.)

Court may not enjoin peaceful picketing in labor dispute. 127 C. 421. Cited. 134 C. 627; 147 C. 608; 186 C. 247; 190 C. 371.

Cited. 9 CS 154; 13 CS 47. When picketing is unlawful. 14 CS 22. Interference with ingress and egress from plant not peaceful picketing. 18 CS 75. Section does not deny courts power to hear and determine injunction actions but only limits them in exercise of that power. 27 CS 156. Cited. 42 CS 227.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1960–1992 · leading case: Local 818 of Council 4 AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Town of East Haven, 614 A.2d 1260 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Local 818 of Council 4 AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Town of East Haven, 614 A.2d 1260 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1992). · cites it 3× “The defendants claim that injunctive relief requiring the continued employment of the individual plaintiffs pending the board’s consideration of a request for a cease and desist order is barred by General Statutes § 31-113, which states, in part, that no court shall have…”
Connecticut Co. v. Div. 425, 164 A.2d 413 (Conn. 1960). · cites it 2× “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…”
Div. 163 of the Amalgamated Ass'n of Street Employees of Am. v. Connecticut Co., 173 A.2d 130 (Conn. 1961). “With the exception of a temporary injunction, which, effective for three days, can be issued under certain circumstances, not present in this case, no injunction, temporary or permanent, can be issued in a labor dispute until notice of hearing has been given to the adverse…”
Anaconda Co. v. United Auto., 382 A.2d 544 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1977). “*159 Insofar as this particular case is concerned, § 31-113 of the General Statutes does provide that injunctive relief cannot he granted to prevent a person or persons from (1) aiding by all lawful means any person participating or interested in any labor dispute; (2) giving…”
Local 45, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of Am. v. Uniroyal, Inc., 232 A.2d 763 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1967). · cites it 2× “” Whether or not the circumstances of this labor dispute confer jurisdiction on the court under §§ 31-113 and 31-115 is the key question.”
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.