Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc.

380 U.S. 255, 85 S. Ct. 876, 13 L. Ed. 2d 789, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2311, 58 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2545
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 15, 1965
Docket61
StatusPublished
Cited by340 cases

This text of 380 U.S. 255 (Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255, 85 S. Ct. 876, 13 L. Ed. 2d 789, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2311, 58 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2545 (1965).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The union, Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians, challenged the Alabama Circuit Court's jurisdiction over a suit by Broadcast Service of Mobile, the corporate name of Radio Station WSIM, to restrain peaceful picketing by the union and its solicitation of advertisers aimed at persuading them to cease doing business with the station. It contended that although the annual gross receipts of WSIM are below the National Labor *256 Relations Board’s jurisdictional minimum of $100,000 per year for radio stations, WSIM is an integral part of a group of radio stations owned and operated by Charles W. Holt and the Holt Broadcasting Service and that the annual receipts of the common enterprise are in excess of $100,000, which is determinative under the Board’s standards. Stating that every court has judicial power to determine its jurisdiction and that the union failed to allege "that the appellant’s [WSIM’s] gross business exceeded $100,000 per annum,” the Alabama Supreme Court held that the state courts had jurisdiction over WSIM’s complaint. We granted certiorari. 379 U. S. 812. The judgment below must be reversed.

Although a state court may assume jurisdiction over labor disputes over which the National Labor Relations Board has, but declines to assert, jurisdiction, 29 U. S. C. §§ 164 (c)(1) and (2) (1958 ed., Supp. V), there must be a proper determination of whether the case is actually one of those which the Board will decline to hear. Hattiesburg Building Trades Council v. Broome, 377 U. S. 126. The Board will assert jurisdiction over an employer operating a radio station if his gross receipts equal or exceed $100,000 per year, Raritan Valley Broadcasting Co., 122 N. L. R. B. 90, and in determining the relevant employer, the Board considers several nominally separate business entities to be a single employer where they comprise an integrated enterprise, N. L. R. B. twenty-first Ann. Rep. 14-15 (1956). The controlling criteria, set out and elaborated in Board decisions, are interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations and common ownership. Sakrete of Northern California, Inc., 137 N. L. R. B. 1220, aff’d 332 F. 2d 902 (C. A. 9th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U. S. 961; Family Laundry, Inc., 121 N. L. R. B. 1619; Canton, Carp’s, Inc., 125 N. L. R. B. 483; V. I. P. Radio, Inc., 128 N. L. R. B. 113; Perfect T. V., Inc., 134 N. L. R. B. 575; Overton Markets, Inc., *257 142 N. L. R. B. 615. The record made below is more than adequate to show that all of these factors are present in regard to the Holt enterprise * and that this is not a case which the Board has announced it would decline to hear. Since the conduct set out in the complaint is regulated by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U. S. C. § 141 et seq. (1958 ed.), “due regard for the federal enactment requires that state jurisdiction must yield.” San Diego Building Trades v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 244; Construction & General Laborers’ Union v. Curry, 371 U. S. 542.

Reversed.

*

The United States, as amicus curiae, confirms the view that the Board’s standards for determining a single employer enterprise were fully satisfied by the structure and operation of the Holt stations.

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

Related

Ferrara v. Oakfield Leasing Inc.
904 F. Supp. 2d 249 (E.D. New York, 2012)
Anderson v. Liles
774 F. Supp. 2d 902 (N.D. Illinois, 2011)
Powell v. Dallas Morning News L.P.
776 F. Supp. 2d 240 (N.D. Texas, 2011)
Norelli v. Hth Corp.
699 F. Supp. 2d 1176 (D. Hawaii, 2010)
Campion v. Northeast Utilities
598 F. Supp. 2d 638 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2009)
Lisenbee v. FedEx Corp.
579 F. Supp. 2d 993 (M.D. Tennessee, 2008)
Woodland v. Viacom, Inc.
569 F. Supp. 2d 83 (District of Columbia, 2008)
Dean v. American Federation of Government Employees, Local 476
509 F. Supp. 2d 39 (District of Columbia, 2007)
Milan v. Centennial Communications Corp.
500 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D. Puerto Rico, 2007)
Watson v. CSA, LTD.
376 F. Supp. 2d 588 (D. Maryland, 2005)
Baetzel v. Home Instead Senior Care
370 F. Supp. 2d 631 (N.D. Ohio, 2005)
Woodell v. United Way of Dutchess County
357 F. Supp. 2d 761 (S.D. New York, 2005)
Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Marketing, LLC
321 F. Supp. 2d 604 (S.D. New York, 2004)
Johnson v. Crown Enterprises, Inc.
294 F. Supp. 2d 850 (M.D. Louisiana, 2003)
Martinez v. Caravan Transportation, Inc.
253 F. Supp. 2d 403 (E.D. New York, 2003)
Cruz-Lovo v. Ryder System, Inc.
298 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (S.D. Florida, 2003)
Leber v. Universal Music & Video Distribution, Inc.
225 F. Supp. 2d 928 (S.D. Illinois, 2002)
Russo v. Lightning Fulfillment, Inc.
196 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D. Connecticut, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
380 U.S. 255, 85 S. Ct. 876, 13 L. Ed. 2d 789, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2311, 58 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radio-television-broadcast-technicians-local-union-1264-v-broadcast-scotus-1965.