San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon Page 21

San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon general information

Media for San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 20, 1959 in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon

Charles P. Scully:

Well, but you could have an argument.

Felix Frankfurter:

You appeal for the intention of Congress and you must rest on the proposition that Congress, by allowing the Board, will shed itself of -- of actions or revolve any actions.

Congress meant to say they should be left to the economic context.

Charles P. Scully:

I think that's what the first Garmon case can be construed as wholly.

Felix Frankfurter:

That is what I'm saying.

Charles P. Scully:

That's correct.

The first case can so be construed.

Felix Frankfurter:

I just wan to know what this gets down to.

Charles P. Scully:

So that we submit if I may go back to the 303 argument, Your Honor, because Mr. Plant has inferred that for the purpose of supporting his arguments, 303 also covers state courts.

We do not believe that that argument is involved in this case.

But we wish to point out that the legislative history at page 1368 in discussing this bill clearly indicates that when they talk about District Courts or comparable courts that they are talking about federal courts.

And that the decision of this Court in the Juneau Spruce case also would -- would infer that particular situation.

Finally, with respect to Mr. Plant's construction of the Laburnum decision in the state court below, we wish to point out that the state court did not find and did not consider any secondary boycott being involved and instead, it specifically stated through Justice Edelstein that there was no redress of any kind as to what -- under that particular case with respect to any violation of the Act.

And so we do not believe that Laburnum can be distinguished on the ground that a secondary boycott was involved.