San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon

Supreme Court of the United States · 1959 · Labor Law

Labor LawFederal preemptionNational Labor Relations ActNLRApreemptionsection 7section 8NLRB

Facts

The unions sought an agreement requiring respondents to employ only workers already in the unions or who applied within thirty days. When respondents refused, the unions peacefully picketed respondents' business and pressured customers and suppliers, and the state trial court found the sole purpose was to compel execution of the proposed contract. Respondents had also initiated a representation proceeding before the NLRB, but the Regional Director declined jurisdiction, apparently because the business did not meet the Board's monetary standards. California courts treated the unions' conduct as an unfair labor practice and ultimately awarded $1,000 in damages under state law.

Issue

May a state award damages for peaceful union conduct when the NLRB has not adjudicated the conduct's status, but the conduct is arguably protected by § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the National Labor Relations Act? Does the Board's refusal to assert jurisdiction leave the State free to provide such a remedy?

Rule

When conduct is clearly or arguably protected by § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the National Labor Relations Act, state jurisdiction must yield to the exclusive primary competence of the National Labor Relations Board. A State may not regulate such conduct, whether by injunction or damages, unless the conduct is merely of peripheral concern to the Act or touches interests deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility, such as violence and imminent threats to public order.

🔒

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.

In Phoenix, a union peacefully handbills and pickets outside Desert Mesa Cabinets, urging workers to join and pressing the company to recognize the union. The employer sues in Arizona state court for lost profits under a general interference-with-business expectancy tort, alleging the campaign was either coercive or an unlawful attempt to pressure recognition.

May the Arizona court award damages?

Explanation. The majority held that when conduct is clearly or arguably protected by § 7 or prohibited by § 8, state jurisdiction must yield to the NLRB. That is true even when the state acts through general tort law and even when the remedy sought is damages rather than injunctive relief, because damages also regulate conduct and risk conflict with the federal scheme.