Carpenters & Millwrights Local Union No. 2018 v. Riggs-Distler & Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Carpenters & Millwrights Local Union No. 2018 v. Riggs-Distler & Co.

190 A.2d 844, 40 N.J. 97, 1963 N.J. LEXIS 164, 53 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2293

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMay 6, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 190 A.2d 844 (Carpenters & Millwrights Local Union No. 2018 v. Riggs-Distler & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carpenters & Millwrights Local Union No. 2018 v. Riggs-Distler & Co., 190 A.2d 844, 40 N.J. 97, 1963 N.J. LEXIS 164, 53 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2293 (N.J. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

*99 The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Ctjbiam.

Plaintiff union sued defeudants-employers for unpaid wages due its members under an alleged collective bargaining agreement which fixed the wage scale. Defendants denied making the agreement, and moved for summary judgment on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction because under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. 8. C. A. § 141 et seq., the subject matter of the controversy was committed to the National Labor Relations Board. The trial court granted the motion relying on San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 369 U. S. 236, 79 S. Ct. 773, 3 L. Ed. 2d 775 (1959). 73 N. J. Super. 253 (1962). We certified the ensuing appeal before it was heard in the Appellate Division. R. R. 1:10-1 (a).

In view of Smith v. Evening News Association, 371 U. S. 195, 83 S. Ct. 267, 9 L. Ed. 2d 246, decided December 10, 1962, the doctrine of Garm.on no longer stands in the way of the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by state courts over a cause of action alleging breach of an employer-union contract relating to wages, hours and other conditions of employment. Such jurisdiction exists under section 301 of the LMRA even though the breach of the agreement may constitute an unfair labor practice. See, also, Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95, 82 S. Ct. 571, 7 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1962); Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502, 82 S. Ct. 519, 7 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1962), where there was a denial by the employer of the making of an alleged new agreement revising the existing wage scale; and Donnelly v. United Fruit Company, et al, 40 N. J. 61 (1963).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for plenary trial.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weintratjb, and Justices Jacobs, Eranois, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Hane-MAJÍ-7.

For affirm,anee — None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*99 The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Ctjbiam.

Plaintiff union sued defeudants-employers for unpaid wages due its members under an alleged collective bargaining agreement which fixed the wage scale. Defendants denied making the agreement, and moved for summary judgment on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction because under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U. 8. C. A. § 141 et seq., the subject matter of the controversy was committed to the National Labor Relations Board. The trial court granted the motion relying on San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 369 U. S. 236, 79 S. Ct. 773, 3 L. Ed. 2d 775 (1959). 73 N. J. Super. 253 (1962). We certified the ensuing appeal before it was heard in the Appellate Division. R. R. 1:10-1 (a).

In view of Smith v. Evening News Association, 371 U. S. 195, 83 S. Ct. 267, 9 L. Ed. 2d 246, decided December 10, 1962, the doctrine of Garm.on no longer stands in the way of the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by state courts over a cause of action alleging breach of an employer-union contract relating to wages, hours and other conditions of employment. Such jurisdiction exists under section 301 of the LMRA even though the breach of the agreement may constitute an unfair labor practice. See, also, Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95, 82 S. Ct. 571, 7 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1962); Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502, 82 S. Ct. 519, 7 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1962), where there was a denial by the employer of the making of an alleged new agreement revising the existing wage scale; and Donnelly v. United Fruit Company, et al, 40 N. J. 61 (1963).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for plenary trial.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weintratjb, and Justices Jacobs, Eranois, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Hane-MAJÍ-7.

For affirm,anee — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.2d 844, 40 N.J. 97, 1963 N.J. LEXIS 164, 53 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenters-millwrights-local-union-no-2018-v-riggs-distler-co-nj-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack