Facts
- A group of unions sought a union-security arrangement requiring Garmon’s employees to join the union or apply for membership within 30 days.
- Garmon refused, asserting such an agreement would be unlawful unless employees first selected a union as their bargaining representative.
- The unions engaged in peaceful picketing at Garmon’s retail lumber yards, urging customers and suppliers not to do business with Garmon to pressure acceptance of the demand.
- Garmon sued in California state court for injunctive relief and damages; a representation petition was also filed with the NLRB and was dismissed by the Regional Director under the Board’s jurisdictional standards.
- The trial court issued an injunction conditioned on union designation by employees and awarded $1,000 in damages; the California Supreme Court initially affirmed.
- After a prior remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court set aside the injunction but reaffirmed damages under state tort law for “unfair labor practices” based on the same peaceful picketing.
Issues
- Whether the NLRA precludes a state court from awarding damages for economic injuries caused by peaceful picketing when the conduct is arguably protected by § 7 or prohibited by § 8.
- Whether the NLRB’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction permits state regulation (including damages) of conduct otherwise within the Board’s primary authority.
Decision
- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the California Supreme Court’s damages judgment.
- When conduct is arguably subject to §§ 7 or 8, state and federal courts must defer to the NLRB’s exclusive competence.
- The NLRB’s decision not to assert jurisdiction does not authorize states to regulate conduct they would otherwise be barred from regulating.
- An award of damages is a form of regulation and can interfere with federal labor policy to the same extent as injunctive relief.
Legal Principles
- If activity is arguably protected by § 7 or arguably prohibited by § 8 of the NLRA, state jurisdiction is displaced and the NLRB has primary authority.
- Preemption turns on interference with the federal regulatory scheme, not on the remedy’s label; damages can chill federally regulated labor activity.
- The NLRB’s jurisdictional standards and declinations do not create a state-law regulatory “gap” over arguably covered conduct.
- Limited state authority remains for matters of peripheral concern to the NLRA or conduct tied to local interests such as violence or breaches of the peace; purely economic regulation of peaceful labor activity within the NLRA’s arguable scope is generally preempted.
Conclusion
Because the unions’ peaceful picketing was at least arguably protected or prohibited by the NLRA, California could not impose tort damages for the resulting economic harm, even though the NLRB had declined to act; the dispute had to be left to the Board’s primary jurisdiction.