Incres S.S. Co. v. International Maritime Workers Union

• Decision Date: 06 June 1963
• Citation: 192 N.E.2d 26,13 N.Y.2d 754,242 N.Y.S.2d 57
• Parties: , 192 N.E.2d 26 INCRES STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Ltd., Respondent-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME WORKERS UNION et al., Appellants-Respondents, and Edward Pogor et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 57

242 N.Y.S.2d 57

13 N.Y.2d 754, 192 N.E.2d 26

INCRES STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Ltd., Respondent-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME WORKERS UNION et al., Appellants-Respondents, and Edward Pogor et al., Defendants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 6, 1963.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 11 A.D.2d 177, 202 N.Y.S.2d 692.

Owner of foreign vessels brought action against union to enjoin union from picketing.

The Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, enjoined the picketing, and the union appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment.

The Court of Appeals, 10 N.Y.2d 218, 219 N.Y.S.2d 21, 176 N.E.2d 719, reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division, and the owner of the vessels brought certiorari.

The United States Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Clark, 372 U.S. 24, 83 S.Ct. 611, 9 L.Ed.2d 557, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, remanded the cause, and held that the National Labor Relations Board had no jurisdiction of picketing of foreign flagships by American union, and that hence state court had jurisdiction to enjoin the picketing because the Board's jurisdiction to prevent unfair labor practices, like its jurisdiction to direct elections, is based on circumstances affecting commerce, and maritime operations of foreign flagships employing alien seamen are not commerce within the National Labor Relations Act, § 2(6), 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(6).

Motion was made in the Court of Appeals to amend the remittitur to conform to the mandate of the United States Supreme Court.

Motion to amend the remittitur to conform with the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States granted, and upon the consent hereto annexed, the return of the remittitur requested, and, when returned, it will be amended to provide as follows: Judgment of the Appellate Division affirmed without any liability upon the part of the appellants-respondents for the further payment of costs.