353 U.S. 138 (1957), 204, Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A.

Docket Nº:No. 204
Citation:353 U.S. 138, 77 S.Ct. 699, 1 L.Ed.2d 709
Party Name:Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A.
Case Date:April 08, 1957
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 138

353 U.S. 138 (1957)

77 S.Ct. 699, 1 L.Ed.2d 709

Benz

v.

Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A.

No. 204

United States Supreme Court

April 8, 1957

Argued March 6, 1957

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 does not apply to a controversy involving damages resulting from the picketing of a foreign ship operated entirely by foreign seamen under foreign articles while the vessel is temporarily in an American port, though American unions to which the foreign seamen did not belong participated in the picketing, and the Act therefore does not preclude a remedy under state law for such damages. Pp. 138-147.

(a) Congress could have made the Labor Management Relations Act applicable to wage disputes arising on foreign vessels between nationals of other countries when the vessel comes within territorial waters of the United States, but Congress did not do so. Pp. 142-147.

(b) The cases of Sailors' Union of the Pacific, 92 N.L.R.B. 547, and Norris Grain Co. v. Seafarers' International Union, 232 Minn. 91, 46 N.W.2d 94, are inapposite to the question for decision here. P. 143, n. 5.

(c) An intent on the part of Congress to change the contractual agreement made by the foreign shipowner and the foreign seamen in this case cannot be read into the Labor Management Relations Act. Pp. 146-147.

233 F.2d 62 affirmed.

CLARK, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

While the petitioners in this diversity case present several questions, the sole one decided is whether the Labor Management Relations Act of 19471 applies to a

Page 139

controversy involving damages resulting from the picketing of a foreign ship operated entirely by foreign seamen under foreign articles while the vessel is temporarily in an American port. We decide that it does not, and therefore do not reach other questions raised by the parties.

The S.S. Riviera, on September 3, 1952, sailed into harbor at Portland, Oregon, for repairs, to load a cargo of wheat, and to complete an insurance survey. It was owned by respondent, a Panamanian corporation, and sailed under a Liberian flag. The crew was made up entirely of nationals of countries other than the United States, principally German and British. They had agreed to serve on a voyage originating at Bremen, Germany, for a period of two years, or until the vessel returned to a European port. A British form of articles of agreement was opened at Bremen. The conditions prescribed by the British Maritime Board were incorporated into the agreement, including wages and hours of employment, all of which were specifically set out. The crew further agreed to obey all lawful commands of the Master of the Riviera in regard to the ship, the stores, and the cargo, whether on board, in boats, or on shore.

On or about September 9, 1952, the members of the crew went on strike on board the vessel and refused to obey the orders of the Master. They demanded that their term of service be reduced, their wages be increased, and more favorable conditions of employment be granted.2

Page 140

They refused to work, demanding their back pay and transportation or its cost to their ports of engagement. The Master told the crew to continue their work or they would be discharged. When they declined to work, he discharged them and ordered them to leave the ship, which they refused to do. This situation continued until September 26, 1952, when the striking crewmen left the vessel pursuant to an order of the United States District Court entered in a possessory libel filed by the respondent. The crew had picketed the vessel from September 9, 1952, when the strike began, until September 26, when they left the ship. On September 15, 1952, they had designated the Sailors' Union of the Pacific as their collective bargaining representative. The striking crew or others acting for them continued the picketing from September 26, 1952, until they withdrew the picket line on October 13, 1952. The Sailors' Union of the Pacific began picketing the Riviera on October 14 and continued to do so until restrained by an injunction issued in an action for injunctive relief and damages filed against it and its principal representatives by the respondent. Two days later, Local 90 of the National Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots [77 S.Ct. 701] of America set up a picket line at the Riviera which was maintained until December 8, 1952. This picketing was stopped by a writ issued against that union and its representatives in the second action for injunction and damages filed by respondent and consolidated here. On December 10, 1952, another picket line was established at the vessel. It was maintained this time by the Atlantic and Gulf Coast District, S.I.U.,3 until it too was enjoined on December 12 in a third action filed by the respondent in which the prayer likewise was for an injunction

Page 141

and damages. These three cases have been consolidated for consideration here. All of the picketing was peaceful.

The ship sailed in December, 1952. In June, 1953, the injunction orders were vacated on appeal to the Court of Appeals and were ordered dismissed as moot. The cases were returned to the District Court for trial on the damage claims. 205 F.2d 944. The ship had not returned to an American port at the time of trial in 1954. At the trial, the court found that the purpose of the picketing "was to compel the [respondent] to reemploy" the striking members of the crew for a shorter term and at more favorable wage rates and conditions than those agreed upon in the articles. The court further found that as a result of the picketing the employees of the firms repairing and loading the vessel refused to cross the picket line and the ship was forced to stand idly by without repairs or cargo, all to the damage of respondent. The unions and their representatives contended that the trial court was without jurisdiction because the Labor Management Relations Act had preempted the field. However, the trial court entered judgment for damages against the three unions as well as their principal representatives. The judgments were based on a common law theory that the picketing was for an unlawful purpose under Oregon law. The court found that respondent had no remedy under the Labor Management Relations Act because that Act

is concerned solely with the labor relations of American workers between American concerns and their employees in the United States, and it is not intended to, nor does it cover a dispute between a foreign ship and its foreign crew.

The Court of Appeals thought that United Construction Workers v. Laburnum Construction Corp., 347 U.S. 656 (1954), governed, but that Oregon law did not permit recovery against the unions, since they were unincorporated

Page 142

associations. 233 F.2d 62.4 This, in effect, left the judgments standing against the individual representatives of the unions, the petitioners here. We granted certiorari in order to settle the important question of jurisdiction 352 U.S. 889.

It should be noted at the outset that the dispute from which these actions sprang arose on a foreign vessel. It was between a foreign employer and a foreign crew operating under an agreement made abroad under the laws of another nation. The only American connection was that the controversy erupted while the ship was transiently in a United States port and American labor unions participated in its picketing.

It is beyond question that a ship voluntarily entering the territorial limits of another country subjects itself to the laws and jurisdiction of that [77 S.Ct. 702] country. Wildenhus' Case, 120 U.S. 1 (1887). The exercise of that jurisdiction is not mandatory, but discretionary. Often, because of public policy or for other reasons, the local sovereign may exert only limited jurisdiction and sometimes none at all. Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100 (1923). It follows that if Congress had so chosen, it could have made the Act applicable to wage disputes arising on foreign vessels between nationals of other countries when the vessel comes within our territorial waters. The question here therefore narrows to one of intent of the Congress as to the coverage of the Act.

The parties point to nothing in the Act itself or its legislative history that indicates in any way that the Congress intended to bring such disputes within the coverage of the Act. Indeed the District Court found to the contrary, specifically stating that the Act does not

Page 143

"cover a dispute between a foreign ship and its foreign crew." The Court of Appeals, though not passing on the question, noted that

[i]t may well be that American laws should not be construed to apply, without some more explicit Congressional indication than we are able to find in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, to situations with as many points of foreign contact as the situation at bar.

233 F.2d at 65.

Our study of the Act leaves us convinced that Congress did not fashion it to resolve labor disputes between nationals of other countries operating ships under foreign laws.5 The whole background ground of the Act is concerned with

Page 144

industrial strife between American employers and employees. In fact, no discussion in either House of Congress has been called to our attention from the thousands of pages of legislative history that indicates in the least that Congress intended the coverage of the Act to extend to circumstances such as those posed here. It appears not to have even occurred to those sponsoring the bill. The Report made to the House by its Committee on Education and Labor and presented by the coauthor of the bill, [77 S.Ct. 703] Chairman Hartley, stated that "the bill herewith reported has been formulated as a bill of rights both for American workingmen and for their employers." The report...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP