Document: 353 U.S. 26 77 S.Ct. 607 1 L.Ed.2d 618 SAN DIEGO BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL et al., Petitioners,v.J. S. GARMON al. No. 50. Argued Jan. 16, 1957. Decided March 25, Mr. Charles P. Scully, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners. James W. Archer, Diego, respondents. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. Respondents are a partnership, operating two retail lumber yards in Diego County, California. In year before this proceeding began they purchased more than $250,000 worth material from outside California resale at retail. Petitioner unions asked them to sign contract including union shop provision. refused on ground that it would be violation National Labor Relations Act such majority their employees had selected as collective bargaining agent. The commenced peaceful picketing enforce demand. About week later respondents filed suit Superior Court an injunction and damages, alleging were interstate commerce sought by violate Act.1 On same day with Board's regional office petition asking question representation resolved. Regional Director dismissed petition. nevertheless pressed claim Board exclusive jurisdiction.2 After hearing entered order enjoining or exerting secondary pressure support demand agreement unless until one another been designated representative respondents' employees. It also awarded $1,000 damages. Supreme affirmed.3 We granted certiorari. 351 923, 76 782. Recognizing business affected commerce, concluded declination, pursuance its announced jurisdictional policy, handle left state courts free act.4 merits court said: 2 'The assertion economic compel employer type here involved is unfair labor practice under section 8(b)(2) (National relations) act. * Concerted activities purpose thus unlawful federal statute, reason not privileged law.'5 3 What we have said Guss v. Utah Board, 1, 598, Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Etc. Fairlawn Meats, Inc., 20, 604, applicable here, those cases control major aspects. Respondents, however, argue award damages must sustained United Construction Workers, etc. Laburnum Corp., 347 656, 74 833, 98 L.Ed. 1025. do reach question. leaves us doubt, but indicates felt bound 'apply' some sense follow law case. There is, course, no compulsion. tort violent conduct. cannot know could interpreted own allow different situation. therefore vacate judgment remand case proceedings inconsistent opinions supra, supra. 4 Vacated remanded. 5 WHITTAKER took part consideration decision 6 For dissenting BURTON CLARK, see 609. Section 8(a)(3) allows enter into security petitioners seeking only if his 61 Stat. 140, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a) (3), U.S.C.A. 158(a)(3). They maintained appealing director's failed exhaust remedies Act. our view case, need consider contention. 45 Cal.2d 657, 291 P.2d 1. Petitioners' purchases fall below standards stores. See 23, 605, note 4. draws distinction application between cases. C. A. Braukman, 94 N.L.R.B. 1609, 1611. page 666, 7.

Category: 9