International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO v. Allied International, Inc.

PETITIONER: International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO
RESPONDENT: Allied International, Inc.
LOCATION: Former land of Valley Forge General Hospital

DOCKET NO.: 80-1663
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1981-1986)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

CITATION: 456 US 212 (1982)
ARGUED: Jan 18, 1982
DECIDED: Apr 20, 1982

ADVOCATES:
Duane R. Batista - on behalf of the Respondent
Ernest L. Mathews, Jr. - on behalf of the Petitioners
Lawrence G. Wallace - as amicus curiae

Facts of the case

Question

Media for International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO v. Allied International, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 18, 1982 in International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO v. Allied International, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - April 20, 1982 in International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO v. Allied International, Inc.

Lewis F. Powell, Jr.:

The third case that I have, 80-1663, International Longshoremen's Association versus Allied International is here on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Respondent, Allied International is an American importer of Russian wood products.

On January 9, 1980, the petitioner, the International Longshoremen's Association, declared a boycott by its members of cargos arriving from the Soviet Union.

The Union took this action to protest the invasion of Afghanistan.

As a result of the boycott, union members refused to unload shipments to Allied with whom the Union had no dispute.

Allied's shipments were disrupted completely and it sued for damages as a victim of a secondary boycott.

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that Allied had stated a claim for relief under Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act and Section 8(b)(4)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act.

We affirm, as commendable as the Union's ultimate objectives may be, the certain effect of its action was to impose serious losses on neutral employers.

This is precisely the sort of burden that the secondary boycott previsions of the labor laws were designed to prevent.

The opinion of the Court again is unanimous.

Warren E. Burger:

Thank you Justice Powell.