The Laburnum case illustrates this last situation. There was no conflict between the federal and state substantive rules because the conduct was a tort under Virginia law and an unfair labor practice under the federal statute. There could be no conflict in the application of these rules because of the violent nature of the conduct involved, an element whose presence is underlined by the later description of the Laburnum case in the Weber Opinion. The Supreme Court's decision in the present case, in stating that 'Laburnum sustained an award of damages under state tort law for violent conduct,' whereas the present case involves a 'different situation,' further emphasizes the importance of violence in Laburnum, and that the rule of that case cannot be automatically extended to all awards of damages. The examples drawn by the court in the Laburnum case from legislative history to support the survival of state remedies all include references to violence, and the court's review was specifically restricted to the question of state jurisdiction 'in view of the type of conduct found by the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. The type of conduct gave assurance that in no event would federal policy be expounded by the Board to condone that which the state there condemned.
This assurance was strengthened by the fact that the state was enforcing a law of general application rather than one aimed specifically at labor relations; from Virginia’s point of view it was irrelevant that the defendants were labor organizations. Although this consideration is evidently not decisive, its importance is made clear in the last paragraph of the opinion where it said that, 'If petitioners were unorganized private persons, conducting themselves as did petitioners here, Virginia would have had undoubted jurisdiction of this action against them. The fact that petitioners are labor organizations provides no reasonable basis for a different conclusion.'