Longshoremen v. Allied Int'l, Inc.

Last updated

Longshoremen v. Allied Int'l, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 18, 1982
Decided April 20, 1982
Full case nameInternational Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO v. Allied International, Inc.
Citations456 U.S. 212 ( more )
102 S.Ct. 1656; 72 L. Ed. 2d 21
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorAllied Int'l v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 492 F. Supp. 334 (D. Mass. 1980); reversed, 640 F.2d 1368 (1st Cir. 1981); cert. granted, 454 U.S. 814(1981).
Holding
That the Longshoremen's Association by refusing to unload Soviet cargo in the United States had undertaken an unfair labor practice as defined by § 8(b) (4)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinion
MajorityPowell, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
National Labor Relations Act

International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO v. Allied International, Inc., 456 U.S. 212 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that a trade union that refused to unload cargo from the Soviet Union in protest against the invasion of Afghanistan had engaged in a secondary boycott, an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. [1]

Contents

Background

Allied International was an importer of wood products from the Soviet Union and had contracts with a shipping firm to bring the products to the United States. The shipping company in turn contracted a stevedoring company to unload the cargo, whose workers were members of the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA). In 1980, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the ILA had resolved not to load or unload Soviet cargo destined for US ports. As a result of this boycott, Allied's shipping was disrupted and the company had to renegotiate its contracts. Allied International sued the union. [2]

Opinion of the Court

Justice Powell rejected the ILA's defense, noting; ''as understandable and even commendable as the ILA's ultimate objectives may be, the certain effect of its action is to impose a heavy burden on neutral employers. It is just such a burden, as well as widening of industrial strife, that the secondary boycott provisions were designed to prevent.'' [3] The Court argued that while ILA claimed to be boycotting the Soviet Union, it was in effect boycotting a third party (the employer). The Court viewed the boycott as a political act, rather than economic. It dismissed claims that of First Amendment protection, as the petition clause relates to expression towards domestic government, not foreign. [4] : 1082 

Subsequent developments

John Rubin, writing on the significance of the case, noted: [5] : 124 

By abandoning the requirement of a primary labor dispute, the Court apparently extended the statutory ban to all politically motivated strikes and picketing. Every employer is arguably neutral in the political endeavors of its employees or the union and is, therefore, entitled to the statute's protection. The Allied decision also forebodes a complete ban on the use of collective bargaining in pursuit of political objectives since section 8(e) of the Act, in essence, prohibits a union and employer from implementing a secondary boycott through a voluntary agreement. This blunt-edged approach gives insufficient consideration to the important first amendment questions raised by political activities and to policy questions concerning the proper scope of union representation of members' interests.

Julius Getman, writing at the time as Professor of Law at Yale University, noted the incongruity in the Court's reasoning between this case and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. , which upheld the right to engage in boycotts: [6] : 16–17 

Both unions and employers have cause to be confused and offended. Why is their speech and speech-related conduct judged by such different standards? ... The majority opinion in Claibome Hardware offers an explanation. In labor cases, the regulation of speech is permissible because of the "strong governmental interest in certain forms of economic regulation, even though such regulation may have an incidental effect on the rights of speech and association." Thus, "secondary boycotts and picketing by labor unions may be prohibited." ... The distinction drawn between the economic activity involved in the labor cases and the political activity relating to public issues is analytically unsound, historically inaccurate, and culturally myopic....To suggest that one goal is of greater public concern than the other is to view labor through the Court's artificially created prism by which collective bargaining becomes dissociated from any broader, nobler, more enduring purpose.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taft–Hartley Act</span> 1947 U.S. federal law regulating labor unions

The Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, better known as the Taft–Hartley Act, is a United States federal law that restricts the activities and power of labor unions. It was enacted by the 80th United States Congress over the veto of President Harry S. Truman, becoming law on June 23, 1947.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959</span> United States labor law

The Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, is a US labor law that regulates labor unions' internal affairs and their officials' relationships with employers.

Solidarity action is industrial action by a trade union in support of a strike initiated by workers in a separate corporation, but often the same enterprise, group of companies, or connected firm.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dockworker</span> Occupation of loading and unloading ships

A dockworker is a waterfront manual laborer who loads and unloads ships.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harry Bridges</span> Australian-American union leader

Harry Bridges was an Australian-born American union leader, first with the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA). In 1937, he led several chapters in forming a new union, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), expanding members to workers in warehouses, and led it for the next 40 years. He was prosecuted for his labor organizing and designated as subversive by the U.S. government during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, with the goal of deportation. This was never achieved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1934 West Coast waterfront strike</span> Labor strike by longshoremen in California, Oregon, and Washington

The 1934 West Coast waterfront strike lasted 83 days, and began on May 9, 1934, when longshoremen in every US West Coast port walked out. Organized by the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA), the strike peaked with the death of two workers on "Bloody Thursday" and the subsequent San Francisco General Strike, which stopped all work in the major port city for four days and led ultimately to the settlement of the West Coast Longshoremen's Strike.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Longshoremen's Association</span> North American labor union

The International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) is a North American labor union representing longshore workers along the East Coast of the United States and Canada, the Gulf Coast, the Great Lakes, Puerto Rico, and inland waterways; on the West Coast, the dominant union is the International Longshore and Warehouse Union. The ILA has approximately 200 local affiliates in port cities in these areas.

The Battle of Ballantyne Pier occurred in Ballantyne Pier during a docker's strike in Vancouver, British Columbia, in June 1935.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Columbia Maritime Employers' Association</span>

The British Columbia Maritime Employers Association is an association representing the interests of member companies in industrial relations on Vancouver's and other British Columbian seaports.

The Charleston Five are five men - Kenneth Jefferson, Rick Simmons, Peter Washington, Elijah Ford, and Jason Edgerton - who were brought up on felony charges of conspiracy to incite a riot on January 19, 2000 in Charleston, South Carolina.

NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co., 304 U.S. 333 (1938), is a United States labor law case of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that workers who strike remain employees for the purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Court granted the relief sought by the National Labor Relations Board, which sought to have the workers reinstated by the employer. However, the decision is much better known today for its obiter dicta in which the Court said that an employer may hire strikebreakers and is not bound to discharge any of them if or when the strike ends.

Michael Clemente, , was a New York mobster in the Genovese crime family who became a major force in controlling the East River waterfront of Manhattan from the 1940s to 1979. His principal territory was between piers 36 and 42. In 1943, Clemente, who was a Caporegime of Joseph Lanza, took over his boss's waterfront rackets at the Fulton Fish Market on the East River when "Socks" Lanza went to prison for 7½ years for extortion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Daniel Keefe</span>

Daniel Joseph Keefe was a founder and the first president of the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA), a trade union representing waterside workers in Canada and the United States of America.

De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 (1960), is a 5-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that an interstate compact restricting convicted felons from holding union office is not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act or the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, does not violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and is not an ex post facto law or bill of attainder in violation of Article One, Section 10 of the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mechanization and Modernization Agreement 1960</span>

The Mechanization and Modernization (M&M) Agreement of 1960 was an agreement reached by California longshoremen unions: International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA), and the Pacific Maritime Association. This agreement applied to workers on the Pacific Coast of the United States, the West Coast of Canada, and Hawaii. The original agreement was contracted for five years and would be in effect until July 1, 1966.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Longshore and Warehouse Union</span> North American labor union

The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) is a labor union which primarily represents dock workers on the West Coast of the United States, Hawaii, and in British Columbia, Canada; on the East Coast, the dominant union is the International Longshoremen's Association. The union was established in 1937 after the 1934 West Coast Waterfront Strike, a three-month-long strike that culminated in a four-day general strike in San Francisco, California, and the Bay Area. It disaffiliated from the AFL–CIO on August 30, 2013.

On July 1, 1971, members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) walked out against their employers, represented by the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA). The union's goal was to secure employment, wages, and benefits in the face of increased mechanization, shrinking workforce, and the slowing economic climate of the early 1970s. The strike shut down all 56 West coast ports, including those in Canada, and lasted 130 days, the longest strike in the ILWU's history.

The Longshore Strike 1948 was an industrial dispute which took place in 1948 on the west coast of the United States. President of the ILWU at the time was Harry Bridges. The WEA led by Frank P. Foisie were in a conflict, they were unable to come to agreeable terms and with the issues of hiring and the politics of union leadership, longshoremen and marine unions performed a walk out on September 2, 1948.
The strike shut down the United States’ West Coast ports and put a dent in American labor history and a positive change for future longshoremen.

The Portland Waterfront strike of 1922 was a labor strike conducted by the International Longshoremen's Association which took place in Portland, Oregon from late April to late June 1922. The strike was ineffective at closing down the Port of Portland due to strikebreakers, and on June 22 the strike ended with the employers dictating terms.

The Portland Longshoremans Benevolent Society was a trade union and benevolent society in Portland, Maine, United States. It existed as an independent organization from its founding in 1880 until it affiliated with the International Longshoremen's Association in 1914. Incorporated in 1880, it was composed of primarily Irish and Irish-American dockworkers who loaded and unloaded ships in the Portland waterfront. The early peak of PLSBS membership occurred in 1899 when the union had 868 members. By 1910, declines in the amount of Canadian grain exported through the port meant decreased membership, which hit 425. Having been defeated in two major strikes, the PLSBS affiliated with the International Longshoremen's Association in early 1914. Similar independent unions had recently joined the ILA in Boston and elsewhere.

References

  1. ↑ Longshoremen v. Allied Int'l, Inc., 456 U.S. 212 (1982).
  2. ↑ Leigh, Monroe (October 1982). "International Longshoremen's Association v. Allied International, Inc. 102 S.Ct. 1656". The American Journal of International Law . 76 (4): 849–851. doi:10.2307/2201559. JSTOR   2201559. S2CID   147393206.
  3. ↑ Greenhouse, Linda (April 21, 1982). "Court Rules Boycott of Soviet's Cargoes Violated Labor Law". The New York Times . ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved November 15, 2019.
  4. ↑ Orloff, Gordon M. (1983). "The Political Boycott: An Unprivileged Form of Expression". Duke Law Journal . 1983 (5): 1076–1094. doi:10.2307/1372428. ISSN   0012-7086. JSTOR   1372428.
  5. ↑ Rubin, John (1984). "The Primary-Secondary Distinction Without the Primary: The New Secondary Boycott Law of Allied International, Inc. v. International Longshoremen's Association". Industrial Relations Law Journal . 6 (1): 94–125. ISSN   0145-188X. JSTOR   24049657.
  6. ↑ Getman, Julius (January 1, 1984). "Labor Law and Free Speech: The Curious Policy of Limited Expression". Maryland Law Review . 43 (1): 4. ISSN   0025-4282.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.