Armstrong v. Matson Navigation Co., 12349

Citation183 F.2d 637
Decision Date28 August 1950
Docket Number12352,No. 12349,No. 12350.,12349,12350.
PartiesARMSTRONG et al. v. MATSON NAVIGATION CO. et al. CURRIE et al. v. MATSON NAVIGATION CO. et al. STEWART et al. v. MATSON NAVIGATION CO. et al.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Albert Michelson and Herbert Chamberlin, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants Armstrong and Currie and others.

Gladstein, Andersen, Resner & Sawyer, Herbert Resner, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants Stewart and others.

Frank J. Hennessy, U.S.Atty., C. Elmer Collett, Asst. U.S.Atty., San Francisco, Cal. (Lillick, Geary, Olson, Adams & Charles, and James L. Adams, San Francisco, Cal., of counsel) for the United States.

Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, Alan B. Aldwell, San Francisco, Cal., for Matson Navigation Co.

Before MATHEWS, ORR and LINDLEY,* Circuit Judges.

ORR, Circuit Judge.

These cases, consolidated on appeal, involve claims for war risk bonuses and maintenance for the periods in which appellants were interned on land by the Japanese Government during the recent war. Appellants were licensed and unlicensed crew members of the S. S. Malama. They sailed aboard that vessel on November 29, 1941, from San Francisco on a voyage described in the shipping articles as follows: "* * * from the port of San Francisco, California, to ports in the Philippine Islands by a route, including stops, as ordered by an agency or department of the United States Government and returning either eastbound or westbound via Cape of Good Hope as ordered by an agency or department of the United States Government, with a right to load or discharge at any intermediate ports, and back to a final Pacific Coast port of discharge and/or bunkering in the United States * * *." The vessel arrived in Honolulu on December 8, 1941, and sailed from Honolulu on December 16, 1941, on a route ordered by United States military and naval authorities. On January 1, 1942, while proceeding in the direction of New Zealand, the ship was attacked and sunk by Japanese planes. The crew were picked up by a Japanese raider and taken to Japan and China, where they were interned until their liberation on September 5, 1945. Subsequently they were repatriated to Pacific Coast ports in the United States.

Appellants were paid war risk bonuses for the period spent at sea west of the 180th meridian aboard Japanese ships and American repatriation ships. The claims here involve war risk bonuses for the period of internment on land and maintenance from the time of capture by the Japanese to the time of liberation.

In support of their claim for payment of war risk bonuses while interned on land, appellants rely on Agnew v. American President Lines, 9 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 107; Federer v. American President Lines, 9 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 111, and Griffin v. American President Lines, 9 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 111, certoriari denied 339 U.S. 951, 70 S.Ct. 478, hereinafter referred to as the President Harrison cases, decided subsequent to entry of judgments by the trial court in the instant cases. Appellees attempt to distinguish the instant cases from the President Harrison cases on the basis of a difference in the wording of the riders attached to the shipping articles in each case. The riders under consideration here, it is said, expressly incorporate the provisions of supplementary collective bargaining agreements between appellee Matson Navigation Company and appellants' unions, and said supplementary agreement provisions negate any obligation to pay war bonuses during internment on land.

In the President Harrison cases the applicable provision of the riders was as follows: "In the event the vessel is interned, destroyed or abandoned as a result of war operations and is unable to continue her voyage, basic wages and emergency wages specified in the collective bargaining agreement between the parties shall be paid to the date the members of the crew arrive in a continental United States port, and the employees shall be repatriated to a continental United States port. War bonuses at the rates specified in certain paragraphs hereof shall be paid while employees are in the war zones defined herein." 177 F.2d 108 (Emphasis supplied.) In the President Harrison cases it was held that since the only provision in the rider itself which could be rationally construed as a definition of a war zone was a provision for the payment of bonuses "from the crossing of the 180th Meridian westbound until crossing the 180th Meridian eastbound," and the internment had taken place west of the 180th meridian, the seamen had been in a war zone, and therefore were entitled to war bonuses, during their entire period of internment on land.

The corresponding...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT