*Act held to apply to pending cases; act does not take away jurisdiction in usual meaning of that word, but limits courts in exercise of power. 127 C. 420. Cited. Id., 421. Repeals by implication Sec. 52-476 as regards injunctions in labor disputes. 134 C. 622. Cited. Id., 625; 135 C. 371; 139 C. 99; Id., 334. Used in interpretation of Sec. 31-236. 142 C. 497. Language of definition is broad and has been liberally construed and applied; closely patterned on the Norris-La Guardia Act. 145 C. 77. Picketing by union not connected with employees held a labor dispute within statute. 146 C. 93. Interpretation of provisions of a labor contract held to be an issue for the court. 147 C. 608. Cited. 183 C. 235; 190 C. 371.
Labor dispute includes refusal of owner of a chain of theaters to employ union members in certain theaters and not in others. 8 CS 325. Where partners perform all the work involved, attempt by union to coerce partnership into signing a contract did not give rise to a labor dispute. 9 CS 154. Where employees not members of union, no labor dispute existed when union attempted to enforce agreement between employer and itself with respect to terms and conditions of employment of the workers. 10 CS 108. A case between employer and employee concerning terms and conditions of employment was one involving a labor dispute. 13 CS 51. Unless otherwise provided for, there is no limitation on court's general equity power. 14 CS 22. Cited. Id., 506. Question of which of two rival unions is entitled to be the bargaining representatives under contract with employer is a labor dispute. 15 CS 327. Corresponding sections of Norris-La Guardia act set out. 17 CS 289. Labor dispute defined; peaceful picketing upheld. Id., 416. Cited. 18 CS 74. Act does not affect substantive rights, it is merely procedural; it is the policy of act to curtail injunctive power of court and not to legalize picketing. 19 CS 452. Does not require that the disputants be in an employer-employee relationship. 20 CS 333. Where the moving party alleges unfair labor practices, where the facts reasonably bring the controversy within sections prohibiting these practices and where the conduct, if not prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act, may be reasonably deemed to come within the protection afforded by that act, the state court must decline jurisdiction in deference to the tribunal which Congress has selected for determining such issues. 21 CS 252. Cited. 27 CS 158.
