N.Y. Shipping Ass'n Inc. v. Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor
| Decision Date | 30 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | 14–4279,14–3958,14–4278,14–4422,14–3957,Nos. 14–3956,s. 14–3956 |
| Citation | 835 F.3d 344 |
| Parties | New York Shipping Association Inc, on behalf of its members; Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors' Association, Inc., on behalf of its members; International Longshoremen's Association AFL–CIO, on behalf of its members and affiliated locals in the Port of New York and New Jersey; Local 1804–1, International Longshoremens Association, AFL–CIO; Local 1814, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL–CIO, on behalf of its members v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor New York Shipping Association Inc., Appellant in 14–3956 New York Shipping Association Inc, on behalf of its members; Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors Association, Inc. on behalf of its members; International Longshoremens Association AFL–CIO, On behalf of its members and affiliated locals in the Port of New York and New Jersey; Local 1804–1, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL–CIO; Local 1814, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL–CIO v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor International Longshoremen's Association, AFL–CIO, Local 1804–1, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL–CIO, Local 1814, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL–CIO, Appellants in 14–3957 New York Shipping Association Inc, on behalf of its members; Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors' Association, on behalf of its members; International Longshoremens Association AFL–CIO, on behalf of its members and affiliated locals in the Port of New York and New Jersey; Local 1804–1, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL–CIO; Local 1814, International Longshoremen's Association, AFL–CIO, on behalf of its members v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors' Association, Inc., Appellant in 14–3958 New York Shipping Association Inc, on behalf of its members; Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors Association, on behalf of its members; International Longshoremens Association AFL–CIO, on behalf of its members; International Longshoremens Association Local 1804–1, on behalf of its members; International Longshoremens Association 1814, on behalf of its members v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor New York Shipping Association, Inc., Appellant in 14–4278 New York Shipping Association Inc, on behalf of its members; Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors Association, on behalf of its members; International Longshoremens Association 1814, on behalf of its members; International Longshoremens Association Local 1804–1, on behalf of its members; International Longshoremens Association AFL–CIO, on behalf of its members v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor International Longshoremen's Association, AFL–CIO; International Longshoremen's Association 1814, International Longshoremen's Association 1804–1; Appellants in 14–4279 New York Shipping Association Inc, on behalf of its members; International Longshoremens Association 1814, on behalf of its members; International Longshoremens Association AFL–CIO, on behalf of its members; International Longshoremens Association Local 1804–1, on behalf of its members; Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors Association, on behalf of its members v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors Association Inc., Appellant in 14–4422 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
James R. Campbell, Jr., Esq., Donato Caruso, Esq. [Argued], The Lambos Firm, 303 South Broadway, Suite 410, Tarrytown, NY 10591 Counsel for Appellant New York Shipping Association, Inc.
Kevin J. Marrinan, Esq. [Argued], John P. Sheridan, Esq., Marrinan & Mazzola Mardon, 26 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10004 Counsel for Appellants International Longshoremen's Association AFL–CIO, International Longshoremen's Association AFL–CIO Local 1804–1, and International Longshoremen's Association AFL–CIO Local 1814
Peter O. Hughes, Esq. [Argued], Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 10 Madison Avenue, Suite 400, Morristown, NJ 07960 Counsel for Appellant Metropolitan Marine Maintenance Contractors Association
Phoebe S. Sorial, Esq. [Argued], Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 39 Broadway, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10006 Counsel for Appellee Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
BEFORE: FUENTES, NYGAARD, and ROTH, Circuit Judges
The District Court ruled that the Appellee, Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor (Commission or Waterfront Commission),1 was within its statutory authority to require shipping companies and other employers to certify that prospective employees had been referred for employment pursuant to federal and state nondiscrimination policies. The District Court also rejected claims that the Commission had unlawfully interfered with collective bargaining rights, holding that such rights were not completely protected under the language of the Waterfront Commission Compact (Compact), which was entered into by the states of New Jersey and New York in 1953. We will affirm.
I.
This appeal takes us deep into the hiring practices and procedures utilized on the New York/New Jersey waterfront. We will start with some history, which to varying degrees, has been reported elsewhere. See, e.g. , De Veau v. Braisted , 363 U.S. 144, 80 S.Ct. 1146, 4 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1960) ; Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor v. Sea Land Serv., Inc ., 764 F.2d 961 (3d Cir. 1985) ; Haze l ton v. Murray , 21 N.J. 115, 121 A.2d 1 (1956) ; Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor v. Constr. & Marine Equip. Co., Inc ., 928 F.Supp. 1388 (D.N.J. 1996). Years of criminal activity and corrupt hiring practices on the waterfront were first brought to light in 1949 in a series of 24 articles published in the New York Sun by journalist Malcolm Johnson. Entitled “Crime on the Waterfront,” these articles won Johnson the Pulitzer Prize, and formed the basis for the 1954 film “On the Waterfront.”2
Hiring practices on the waterfront also caught the attention of the New York State Crime Commission (Crime Commission), which issued a report in 1953 relating in detail the pervasive influence of crime and corruption on waterfront hiring practices. See Fourth Report of the New York State Crime Commission , N.Y.S. Leg. Doc. No. 70 (1953). The Crime Commission singled-out the “shape-up” hiring system for particular scorn. The term connotes a hiring method whereby the applicants appeared daily at the docks or other locations and a hiring boss would select those who would be given work. Id. at 37.3 The foundation of this practice was the union foreman's unfettered control over the process and his unchecked power to select whomever he desired for employment.
The Crime Commission report led to public hearings on its findings. Then-New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey held hearings, the goal of which was to come up with a legislative plan to address the Commission's concerns. Representatives of the State of New Jersey were also present for and participated in these hearings. The “shape-up” hiring system was identified by the Commission as a vector for corruption and criminal practices on the docks. So as “to investigate, deter, combat and remedy” this criminality and corruption, the states of New Jersey and New York entered into the Compact in 1953. Gonzalez v. Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor , 755 F.3d 176, 177 (3d Cir. 2014) ; see also N.J.S.A. § 32:23–1, et seq. Pursuant to Art. I., § 10 of the United States Constitution, Congress approved the Compact in August of 1953.4 The Compact created the Waterfront Commission to, among other things, eliminate corrupt hiring practices on the waterfront. Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. v. Elizabeth–Newark Shipping Inc ., 164 F.3d 177, 180 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing Hazelton , 21 N.J. at 120–23, 121 A.2d 1 ). In enacting the Compact, the legislatures of both states noted:
One way the Compact sought to rein in the corruption associated with hiring on the waterfront was by requiring the Commission to regulate longshoremen and stevedores. Employment Information Centers were to be operated by the Commission to handle all hiring of longshoremen. Further, the Compact charged the Commission with registering all individuals who were qualified to work as longshoremen and specifically provided that “no person shall act as a longshoreman within the Port of New York district unless at the time he is included in the longshoremen's register.” N.J.S.A. § 32:23–27. The Compact also provided a definition of a longshoreman:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Org.
... ... F.Supp.3d 579 Jeffrey Fleischmann, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs. Gassan Adnan Baloul, Joseph ... Carozzi N. Am., Inc. , 286 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam) ... ...
-
State ex rel. State Eng'r v. United States
...effect of congressional consent on a settlement entered into pursuant to the Compact Clause); N.Y. Shipping Ass’n Inc. v. Waterfront Comm’n of N.Y. Harbor , 835 F.3d 344, 348 n.4 (3rd Cir. 2016) (same). Therefore a compact between interstate authorities may not be impaired by the participat......
-
Waldman v. Palestine Liberation Organization
... ... that this Court's decision in Gucci America, Inc. v. Weixing Li , 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014), ... ...
-
Fuld v. The Palestine Liberation Org. (PLO)
...district court could not constitutionally exercise either general or specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants." Waldman I, 835 F.3d at 344. We explained, as a threshold matter, that while sovereign governments lack due process rights, "neither the PLO nor the PA is recognized by t......