Carpenters District Council of Jacksonville & Vicinity v. Waybright
1974 Fla. LEXIS 4806 · 299 So. 2d 9 · 88 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2424
July 24, 1974 · Docket No. 41199
Opinion
This case is before us pursuant to a mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States,
The suit originally sought to enjoin petitioner union’s alleged breach of a no-strike clause contained in a collective-bargaining agreement, which breach arguably is also an unfair labor practice under the Labor Management Relations Act.
“It is unquestionable that state courts do have jurisdiction to enforce a collective-bargaining agreement and to enjoin a strike in violation of a ‘no-strike’ clause contained therein, but not when the strike is also arguably an unfair la1 bor practice prohibited by federal law.” at 302.
The Supreme Court of the United States reversed this Court’s holding, stating that:
“ . . ... When, however, the activity in question also constitutes a breach of a collective-bargaining agreement, the Board’s authority ‘is not exclusive and does not destroy the jurisdiction of the courts in suits under § 301.’ Smith v. Evening News Ass’n, supra, 371 U.S. [195], at 197, 83 S.Ct. [267], at 269 [9 L.Ed.2d 246]. This exception was explicitly reaffirmed in Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 297-298, 91 S.Ct. 1909, 1923-1924, 29 L.Ed.2d 473 (1971).”
As a result of that opinion, the issue of whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to enter the temporary restraining order prohibiting a strike by the Carpenters Union has been resolved.
For this reason the cause is remanded to the District Court of Appeal for further proceedings consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
. Styled: William E. Arnold Co. v. Carpenters District Council of Jacksonville and vicinity et al., 417 U.S. 12, 94 S.Ct. 2069, 40 L.Ed.2d 620.
. 279 So.2d 300 (1973).
. 29 U.S.C. § 185.