397 U.S. 195 (1970), 231, International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1416, AFL-CIO

• Docket Nº: No. 231
• Citation: 397 U.S. 195, 90 S.Ct. 872, 25 L.Ed.2d 218
• Party Name: International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1416, AFL-CIO
• Case Date: March 09, 1970
• Court: United States Supreme Court

Page 195

397 U.S. 195 (1970)

90 S.Ct. 872, 25 L.Ed.2d 218

International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1416, AFL-CIO

No. 231

United States Supreme Court

March 9, 1970

v. Ariadne Shipping Co., Ltd.

Argued January 13, 1970

CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT CORT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT

Syllabus

Respondents, a Liberian corporation and a Panamanian corporation, employed foreign crews to operate cruise ships to the Caribbean fro Florida. When the vessels berthed at Florida ports, the ships' crews in part and outside labor in part performed the loading, which the petitioner union picketed, protesting that the longshore work was being done at substandard wage rates. Respondents obtained injunctive relief against the picketing from the Florida courts, which held that the picketing was beyond the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and could be enjoined as violative of Florida law.

Held: Since this dispute centered on wages to be paid American longshoremen working on American docks, and did not concern the ships' "internal discipline and order," it was not within the scope of "maritime operations of foreign-flag ships," which are outside the jurisdiction of the NLRB. Petitioner's peaceful primary picketing arguably constituted protected activity under § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, and, thus, the NLRB's jurisdiction was exclusive, and preempted that of the Florida courts. Pp. 198-201.

215 So.2d 51, reversed.

Page 196

BRENNAN, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented here is whether the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., preempts state jurisdiction to enjoin peaceful picketing protesting substandard wages paid by foreign-flag vessels to American longshoremen working in American ports. The Florida courts held that there was no preemption, citing McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional, 372 U.S. 10 (1963), and Incres Steamship Co. v. International Maritime Workers Union, 372 U.S. 24 (1963). We granted certiorari. 396 U.S. 814 (1969). We reverse.

In 1966, the respondents, a Liberian corporation and a Panamanian corporation, operated cruise ships to the Caribbean from Port Everglades and Miami, Florida. Respondent Ariadne Shipping Company operated the S.S. Ariadne, of Liberian registry, with a crew subject [90 S.Ct. 873] to Liberian ship's articles. Respondent Evangeline Steamship Company operated S.S. Bahama Star, of Panamanian registry, with a crew subject to Panamanian ship's articles. The uncontradicted evidence showed that "[l]oading of the ship, stowage and loading of automobiles, loading cargo and ship stowage" occurred whenever either vessel berthed at Port Everglades or Miami, "[p]art of it [performed] by employees of the ship and some of it by outside labor." The petitioner is a labor organization representing longshoremen in the Miami area. Although none of those doing the longshore work for the ships belonged to the union, whenever either vessel docked at Port Everglades or Miami in May, 1966, petitioner stationed a picket near the vessel to patrol with a placard protesting that the longshore

Page 197

work was being done under substandard wage conditions.¹ Respondents obtained temporary injunctive relief against the picketing from the Circuit Court for Dade County.² That court rejected petitioner's contention that the subject matter was preempted, holding that, under McCulloch, the picketing was beyond the reach of the regulatory power of the National Labor Relations Board, and hence could be enjoined, since it violated Florida law. The temporary injunction was affirmed by the District Court of Appeal for the Third District of Florida in a brief per curiam order citing McCulloch and Incres. 195 So.2d 238 (1967). Thereafter the Circuit Court, without further hearing, made the injunction permanent. The District Court of Appeal again affirmed, although noting that the testimony "tended to show" that the picketing was carried on to protest against the substandard wages paid for the longshore work. 215 So.2d 51,

Page 198

53 (1968).³ The Supreme Court of Florida denied review in an unreported order.

McCulloch and Incres construed the National Labor Relations Act to preclude Board jurisdiction over labor disputes concerning certain maritime operations of foreign-flag vessels. Specifically, Incres, 372 U.S. at 27, held that "maritime operations of foreign-flag ships employing alien seamen are not in `commerce' within the meaning of 2(6) [of the Act]." See also Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, 353 U.S. 138 (1957). This construction of the statute, however, was addressed to situations in which Board regulation of the labor relations in question would necessitate inquiry into the "internal discipline and order" of a foreign vessel, an intervention thought likely to "raise considerable [90 S.Ct. 874] disturbance not only in the field of maritime law, but in our international relations, as well." McCulloch, 372 U.S. at 19.

In Benz, a foreign-flag vessel temporarily in an American port was picketed by an American seamen's union, supporting the demands of a foreign crew for more favorable conditions than those in the ship's articles which they signed under foreign law, upon joining the vessel in a foreign port. In McCulloch, an American seamen's union petitioned for a representation election among the foreign crew members of a Honduran-flag vessel who were already represented by a Honduran union, certified under Honduran labor law. Again, in Incres, the picketing was by an American union formed "for the primary purpose of organizing foreign seamen on foreign-flag ships." 372 U.S. at 25-26. In these cases, we concluded that, since the Act primarily concerns strife between

Page 199

American employers and employees, we could reasonably expect Congress to have stated expressly any intention to include within its coverage disputes between foreign ships and their foreign crews. Thus, we could not find such an...