International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 1416, AFL-CIO v. Eastern S. S. Lines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 02 July 1968
• Docket Number: No. 67--727,AFL-CI,A,67--727
• Citation: 211 So.2d 858
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1416,ppellant, v. EASTERN STEAMSHIP LINES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 858

211 So.2d 858

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1416, AFL-CIO, Appellant, v. EASTERN STEAMSHIP LINES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 67--727.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 2, 1968.

Rehearing Denied July 25, 1968.

Kastenbaum, Mamber, Gopman, Epstein & Miles, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Muller, Schenerlein & Bare, Shutts & Bowen and Cotton Howell, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, we are called upon to review the propriety of a final order permanently enjoining certain activity by the appellant union. Following the filing of a verified complaint and the issuance of a temporary injunction, the union sought to dissolve same, which motion was denied. In denying said motion, the trial court said, in part, the following:

'THIS CAUSE CAME on to be heard before this Court upon Defendant's Motion to Dissolve and/or Vacate Temporary Injunction and Defendant's Special Motion to Dismiss and/or Quash the Complaint, and the Court having considered evidence presented by Defendant and having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, and being of the opinion that the Defendant has failed at this time to prove lack of jurisdiction of this Court in this cause, but that jurisdiction may be one of the issues of fact and law to be determined at final hearing, it is therefore,

'* * *'

This order was appealed to this court and affirmed. See: International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1416, AFL-CIO v. Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 193 So.2d 73. ¹ Thereafter, the respective parties moved for summary orders or decrees in their favor, after which the circuit judge entered an amended order granting the relief sought by the plaintiff and made the temporary injunction theretofore issued permanent. A portion of the order under review reads as follows:

'* * *

'1. That the Plaintiff EASTERN STEAMSHIP LINES, INC., is engaged in activities which affect interstate commerce and/or foreign commerce in sufficient quantities for the National Labor Relations Board to assume jurisdiction of said employer and this cause;

'2. That the activities of the Defendant Labor Organization in engaging in picketing of the Plaintiff EASTERN STEAMSHIP LINES, INC., do not constitute a labor dispute arguably subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board; * * *.

'* * *'

The appellant has duly prosecuted this appeal and contends that with the finding by the circuit judge that the appellee was engaged in interstate commerce in sufficient quantity to activate the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, it should have divested itself of jurisdiction because the labor activity involved constituted a dispute cognizable under the National Labor Relations Board Act.

It appears to us that the sole point for determination on this appeal is whether the supporting material relied on by the appellant (in its motion for summary relief) sufficiently raises an issue of whether or not the union's activities were such as to constitute an arguable dispute under the National Labor Relations Board Act. The order under review having been rendered in response to a motion for summary relief, if any issue was presented by the affidavits, depositions, etc., presented by the appellant which would tend to show such a dispute, the injunction should not have been made permanent.

Examining the record in light of these principles, it appears that the appellant's real grievance is with certain foreign flag ships, and the only employees who are allegedly paid substandard wages or who work in unsafe conditions are those employed by the foreign flag vessels and that there is in reality no dispute between the union and the appellee as to its employees concerning wages, hours, and working conditions. It has been held by the Federal courts that the National Labor Relations Board does not have jurisdiction over...