Court Opinion

ID: 9643388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:27:47.89638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:00.285401
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen :
There is such an abundance of excellent legal writing on the problem of state jurisdiction over labor relations that it seems a waste of time to require the reading of the lengthy majority opinion in order to discover that the decision equates the petty contacts disclosed by the evidence as “conduct marked by violence and imminent threats to public order.”
At this late date it should come as no surprise to the Bar that Congress has preempted activities subject to the NLRA and that the Supreme Court of the United States, despite the presence of activities potentially subject to the NLRA, has permitted states to retain jurisdiction and power to regulate as a matter of their own state law (1) conduct of “merely peripheral concern” to the Federal Act, and (2) conduct “marked by violence and imminent threats to the public order”, and (3) a suit under section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act on a collective contract between a union and an employer,1
*and (4) the enforcement of an agency shop contract that violates a state law applicable to such contract by virtue of Section 14(b) of the NLRA.
I can not conclude as the majority does that the activities in this labor dispute generated sufficient “vio*440lence and imminent threats to the public order” so as to create state jurisdiction.
I dissent.

 la tMs situation only Federal law5 would be applied by the state court.