Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. Richman Brothers

Supreme Court of Ohio · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsLabor LawFederal PreemptionNational Labor Relations ActNLRApreemptionstate-court jurisdictionorganizational picketing

Facts

The case involved peaceful picketing of Richman's premises by labor unions and their members to force the employer to accede to the unions' demands and to bring about the unionization of those who worked for the employer. Interstate commerce was involved. The opinion states that the employer and its employees were satisfied with existing working conditions and did not desire relations with any labor union. The picketing was described by the court as "stranger picketing" and there was no showing of violence sufficient to create state jurisdiction.

Issue

Whether Ohio courts had jurisdiction to enjoin or otherwise grant relief against peaceful organizational picketing of an employer engaged in interstate commerce, where the activity was arguably governed by the National Labor Relations Act and no sufficient violence was shown.

Rule

A state court does not have power to enjoin union conduct such as peaceful picketing of an interstate employer's premises to induce unionization of its employees, because such activity presents a question of unfair labor practice within the Labor Management Relations Act and is, at least initially, within exclusive federal jurisdiction. This is so whether the conduct is protected or prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act, and even if the National Labor Relations Board refuses to take jurisdiction, absent violence sufficient to permit state action.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeview Furnishings, a furniture distributor in Cleveland, ships inventory to and from several states. A union with no current members among Lakeview’s workers stations pickets outside the warehouse carrying signs urging employees to join the union and urging management to recognize it. The picketing is peaceful, and Lakeview seeks an injunction in Ohio court.

Under the majority opinion’s rule, should the Ohio court issue the injunction?

Explanation. The majority treated peaceful picketing of an interstate employer’s premises to induce unionization as a matter committed to the federal labor-law regime, not state injunction power. The state court is without jurisdiction to enjoin such conduct merely because it is organizational or because the picketers are outsiders. (Derived from Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. Richman Brothers (n.d.).)