Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras v. McCulloch, Civ. A. No. 4020-61.

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Writing for the CourtHerzel H. E. Plaine, Charles S. Rhyne and Brice W. Rhyne, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff
Citation201 F. Supp. 82
PartiesSOCIEDAD NACIONAL DE MARINEROS DE HONDURAS, Plaintiff, v. Frank W. McCULLOCH, Chairman, and Philip Ray Rodgers, Boyd Leedom, John H. Fanning, and Gerald A. Brown, Members, National Labor Relations Board, Defendants.
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 4020-61.
Decision Date18 January 1962

201 F. Supp. 82

SOCIEDAD NACIONAL DE MARINEROS DE HONDURAS, Plaintiff,
v.
Frank W. McCULLOCH, Chairman, and Philip Ray Rodgers, Boyd Leedom, John H. Fanning, and Gerald A. Brown, Members, National Labor Relations Board, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 4020-61.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

January 18, 1962.


Herzel H. E. Plaine, Charles S. Rhyne and Brice W. Rhyne, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallett-Prevost and Norton J. Come, Assts. Gen. Counsel, for National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for defendants.

H. Howard Ostrin, New York City, for intervenor National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO.

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

The question presented in this case is whether the National Labor Relations Board has authority to order that an election for the designation of representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining, be held among foreign seamen employed on foreign merchant ships that have occasion to visit American ports and that are owned by a foreign corporation that is a subsidiary of an American corporation.

201 F. Supp. 83

The National Labor Relations Board, on November 15, 1961, rendered a decision and issued a direction that an election be conducted among seamen employed on certain vessels flying the flag of Honduras and owned by a Honduran corporation, the name of which is Empresa Hondurena de Vapores, S. A., generally known as Empresa, and which is a subsidiary of the United Fruit Company, an American corporation. The purpose of the election was to determine whether these seamen desired to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by the National Maritime Union of America AFL-CIO, or by a Honduran labor union briefly known as "Sindimar", or by neither. The plaintiff, Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras, is a Honduran labor union and the bargaining agent of these seamen under the laws of Honduras. The name of the plaintiff was not to be placed on the ballot at the prospective election.

On December 16, 1961 the plaintiff brought this action against the members of the Board to enjoin and restrain them from conducting the election on the ground that in ordering it, the Board had exceeded its legal authority. A temporary restraining order was issued on the same day. A hearing was held on December 20, 1961. The National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, was granted leave to intervene as a defendant, since it had been a party to the proceeding before the Board. A motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion by the defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted were heard at length. A decision on these two motions was reserved in order to accord to the Department of Justice an opportunity to submit a statement as to its attitude and as to the position of the Department of State concerning the matter.1

The pertinent facts may be summarized as follows. Empresa is a corporation organized under the laws of Honduras, where it maintains its principal office and place of business. It owns and operates a fleet of seagoing vessels, which are registered under the laws of Honduras and fly the flag of that country. The crews of these ships are composed entirely of citizens of Honduras, with the exception of one person, who is a British subject. All of the seamen are members of a Honduran labor union, which is the plaintiff in this action, and which is briefly known as Sociedad. They were hired in Honduras under shipping articles executed in that country. Sociedad is recognized by the Government of Honduras as the sole collective bargaining agent of these seamen. Collective bargaining agreements are in effect between Empresa and Sociedad. Empresa is a subsidiary of United Fruit Company, a New Jersey corporation. The ships in question make voyages and carry freight between Central and South American ports, as well as between Central and South American ports and ports of the United States.

On November 13, 1959, the National Maritime Union of America, AFL-CIO, filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board, seeking to represent as a single unit all unlicensed seamen employed on ships owned by various subsidiaries of the United Fruit Company, including Empresa. Statutory authority for maintaining such a proceeding is found in 29 U.S.C.A. § 159(c). The Union claimed that it represented a number of these employees. It does not appear whether the activity of the American Union was instigated by any of the seamen, or whether the Union was interjecting itself on its own initiative.

A series of hearings were conducted before an Examiner and the matter was then considered by the Board. Two years later, on November 15, 1961, the Board rendered a decision, in effect, granting the prayer of the petition and ordering an election, as has already been stated.

201 F. Supp. 84
The comprehensive and exhaustive opinion of the Board was substantially predicated on the propositions that the flag or nationality of the vessels should play no role in its determination; that the ships were actually controlled by United Fruit Company as a charterer; that the bulk of the trade conducted by the ships was between Central and South American countries and the United States; and that, consequently, this shipping was essentially that of this nation, and an adjunct of the operations of a domestic corporation in international trade of the United States. It was contemplated that the balloting would take place in part on board each ship when it visited an American port, and in part by mail, i. e. "absentee voting"

Honorable Celeo Davila, Ambassador of Honduras, promptly submitted a formal written protest, dated November 29, 1961, against the decision of the Board, in which he courteously but firmly called attention to the fact that a treaty between Honduras and the United States, signed on November 7, 1927, provided that merchant vessels under the flag of either of the contracting parties, should be deemed to be the vessels of the party whose flag they fly, both within the territorial waters of the other party and on the high seas. He also called attention to some of the other facts that have already been summarized and to certain principles of international law.

At the argument of the motions before this Court, a representative of the Department of Justice was present as an observer. The Court invited him to submit a statement of the views of the Government as to the merits of the Honduran note, and time was accorded for that purpose. Subsequently this Court received a formal communication from Honorable William H. Orrick, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, dated January 10, 1962, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:

"The Department of State informs me that, although the Department does not support all the statements in the Honduran Note, it agrees with the conclusion that jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board should not attach in this case.
"We are sending copies of this letter to the counsel of record."

Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board responded by a letter dated January 12, 1962, in which he took issue with the Department of Justice and the Department of State, and adhered to his original position that the Board had acted within the scope of its authority.

This disagreement between counsel for various agencies of the Government complicates the problem before the Court and requires more elaborate and exhaustive discussion than might otherwise be needed. The Attorney General, as the chief legal officer of the Government, through his representatives, indicates that the Department of State is of the opinion that the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board should not attach in this case. It is a reasonable inference that in transmitting the views of the Department of State, the Department of Justice was, in effect, approving or concurring in them. On the other hand, counsel for the National Labor Relations Board, which theoretically is also an agency of the Executive branch of the Government, strikes a dissonant note and seeks to uphold the jurisdiction of the Board. Ordinarily, the Attorney General, through members of his staff, or through the United States Attorney, appears in behalf of the Government. If there are any differences of opinion between Government agencies, they are generally adjusted intramurally, and the definitive position of the Government is presented to the Courts by the Attorney General through his representatives.2

201 F. Supp. 85

The anomalous situation presented in the instant case gives rise to some reflections on an interesting and significant development that in recent years has gradually taken place in the fundamental political institutions of this country. It is, of course, elementary that the Founding Fathers contemplated a tripartite division of the Federal Government, consisting of three coordinate branches. Being both profound scholars and practical realists, they derived their ideas in part from political philosophers, principally Montesquieu, and in part from their own actual experience. The advent of the administrative process, which was almost unknown in Anglo-American jurisprudence at the time of the Constitutional Convention, but which has been necessitated by modern social and economic developments, has affected this tripartite division. At times the administrative process is employed by Executive departments and agencies, such as the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and others. It is also applied by regulatory Boards and Commissions. Beginning with the Interstate Commerce Commission, which was created in 1887, the number of such establishments has greatly grown. This development was particularly rapid in the years immediately following the great depression.

It was at first assumed that these Boards and Commissions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Culloch v. Sociedad Nacional Marineros Honduras Leod v. Empresa Hondurena Vapores National Maritime Union of America, Afl 8212 Cio v. Empresa Hondurena Vapores, Nos. 107
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1963
    ...the District of Columbia, on application of the foreign bargaining agent of the vessels' crewmen, enjoined the Board members in No. 107. 201 F.Supp. 82. We granted each of the three petitions for certiorari, 370 U.S. 915, 82 S.Ct. 1559, 8 L.Ed.2d 496, and consolidated the cases for argument......
  • U.S. v. Liles, No. 81-5391
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • March 15, 1982
    ...955a should be construed in a manner consistent with those obligations. See Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras v. McCulloch, 201 F.Supp. 82, 89 (D.D.C.1962), aff'd, 372 U.S. 10, 83 S.Ct. 671, 9 L.Ed.2d 547 (1963); United States v. White, 508 F.2d 453, 456 (8th Cir. Appellants point ......
  • Empresa Lineas Maritimas Argentinas v. Sindicato Obreros Maritimos Unidos, AFL-CI
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • July 10, 1962
    ...U.S. Ct. of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 300 F.2d 222; Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras v. McCulloch, U.S.D.C. District of Columbia, 201 F.Supp. 82). In the cited cases, the Board attempted to assert jurisdiction over a dispute between a labor union and the owners of a Honduran vessel wh......
  • Fruit Dispatch Co. v. National Maritime Union of America, No. 193
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • March 12, 1962
    ...Board, 300 F.2d 222, and the other in the case of Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras v. McColloch, et al., U.S.D.C., D.C., 201 F.Supp. 82. That the picketing is peaceful does not warrant its pursuit when it is illegal and tortious; illegal because its purpose is to interfere with an......
4 cases
  • Culloch v. Sociedad Nacional Marineros Honduras Leod v. Empresa Hondurena Vapores National Maritime Union of America, Afl 8212 Cio v. Empresa Hondurena Vapores, Nos. 107
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1963
    ...the District of Columbia, on application of the foreign bargaining agent of the vessels' crewmen, enjoined the Board members in No. 107. 201 F.Supp. 82. We granted each of the three petitions for certiorari, 370 U.S. 915, 82 S.Ct. 1559, 8 L.Ed.2d 496, and consolidated the cases for argument......
  • U.S. v. Liles, No. 81-5391
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • March 15, 1982
    ...955a should be construed in a manner consistent with those obligations. See Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras v. McCulloch, 201 F.Supp. 82, 89 (D.D.C.1962), aff'd, 372 U.S. 10, 83 S.Ct. 671, 9 L.Ed.2d 547 (1963); United States v. White, 508 F.2d 453, 456 (8th Cir. Appellants point ......
  • Empresa Lineas Maritimas Argentinas v. Sindicato Obreros Maritimos Unidos, AFL-CI
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • July 10, 1962
    ...U.S. Ct. of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 300 F.2d 222; Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras v. McCulloch, U.S.D.C. District of Columbia, 201 F.Supp. 82). In the cited cases, the Board attempted to assert jurisdiction over a dispute between a labor union and the owners of a Honduran vessel wh......
  • Fruit Dispatch Co. v. National Maritime Union of America, No. 193
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • March 12, 1962
    ...Board, 300 F.2d 222, and the other in the case of Sociedad Nacional de Marineros de Honduras v. McColloch, et al., U.S.D.C., D.C., 201 F.Supp. 82. That the picketing is peaceful does not warrant its pursuit when it is illegal and tortious; illegal because its purpose is to interfere with an......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT