HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL NO. 255, et al. v. SAX ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.
No. 5.
Argued November 10, 1958.
Decided January 12, 1959.
Arthur J. Goldberg and David E. Feller argued the causes and filed a brief for petitioners.
Marion E. Sibley and Thomas H. Anderson argued the causes for respondents. With them on the brief were Thomas H. Barkdull, Jr. and Samuel J. Kanner.
Together with No. 6, Hotel Employees Union, Local No. 255, et al. v. Levy et al., doing business as Sherry Frontenac Hotel, et al., also on certiorari to the same Court.
Per Curiam.
The judgments of the Supreme Court of Florida in these twelve consolidated cases must be reversed. They all concern the power of the courts of Florida to enjoin organizational picketing at twelve Florida resort hotels. After a series of decisions in regard to these and related cases, the Florida Supreme Court, in identical per curiam opinions, affirmed the issuance of permanent injunctions against the picketing.
The Florida courts were without jurisdiction to enjoin this organizational picketing, whether it was activity protected by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 157, Hill v. Florida ex rel. Watson, 325 U. S. 538, or prohibited by § 8 (b) (4) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b)(4), Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485. See Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, at 481. This follows even though the National Labor Relations Board refused to take jurisdiction, Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, 353 U. S. 20. The record does not disclose violence sufficient to give the State jurisdiction under United Automobile Workers v. Wisconsin Board, 351 U. S. 266. In none of the twelve cases did the Florida trial courts make any finding of violence, and in some an affirmative finding of no violence was made.
Since it was stipulated below that a witness would testify that interstate commerce was involved in the Florida resort hotel industry, and since the parties asked that “Final Decree be entered by the Chancellor upon the record as now made in the light of this Stipulation,” we find it unnecessary to remand for consideration of that question. See Hotel Employees Local No. 255 v. Leedom, 358 U. S. 99. Other questions raised by respondents are either without merit or irrelevant to this disposition of the cases.
Reversed.
Sax Enterprises, Inc., v. Hotel Employees Union, 80 So. 2d 602; Boca Raton Club, Inc., v. Hotel Employees Union, 83 So. 2d 11; and Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Employees Union, 92 So. 2d 415.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.