International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1291 v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Association

PETITIONER: International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1291
RESPONDENT: Philadelphia Marine Trade Association
LOCATION: Piggie Park No. 1 -- Drive-in Restaurant

DOCKET NO.: 34
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1967-1969)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

CITATION: 389 US 64 (1967)
ARGUED: Oct 12, 1967
DECIDED: Nov 06, 1967

Facts of the case

Question

Media for International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1291 v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Association

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 12, 1967 in International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1291 v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Association

Earl Warren:

Number 34, International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1291, Petitioner, versus Philadelphia Marine Trade Association

Mr. Freedman, you may proceed.

Abraham E. Freedman:

May it please the Court.

This case and the next one are related and grow out of the same set of facts.

I might characterize the first case as the injunction action and the second as the contempt case.

And since they both involved and grow out of the same set of facts, I think, I would like to review the basic facts first, so that when I get to the second case, I need only go right into the legal aspects of it without again reviewing the factual picture.

Earl Warren:

Would you like to have them heard together as one case?

Abraham E. Freedman:

I think that would be entirely satisfactory with me, if Your Honors.(Voice Overlap)

Earl Warren:

Very well, that maybe consolidated then and argued together.

Divide to take your time the way you want.

Abraham E. Freedman:

Thank you, Your Honors.

I think that would simplify matters a great deal.

The basic questions, Your Honor, on the first case the so-called “injunction case” as I have outlined that characterized it, is does a federal court have jurisdiction to enjoin a union from a work stoppage arising out of a labor dispute under the guise of an order for a specific performance to enforce an arbitrator's award.

This is the basic.

This is one of the basics --

William O. Douglas:

Why do you use these words “under the guise”?

Is this -- a pretense you mean?

Is it a pretense?

Abraham E. Freedman:

I think, perhaps I didn't want to go that far on my characterization and I would not impute any impropriety or anything of that --

William O. Douglas:

You're talking about that power, the existence of power --

Abraham E. Freedman:

Yes, Your Honor.

I did not --

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

Well really, Mr. Freedman, it comes down I gather part from your brief is an order enforcing an arbitrators award, an injunction for the purposes of the statute in Norris-LaGuardia that bars federal jurisdiction to issue injunction against free speech.

Abraham E. Freedman:

That's a basic issue in this case, Your Honor.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

That's not under the guise of anything.

You do have an order enforcing an arbitrator's award.

Abraham E. Freedman:

Except, Your Honor, there is this much about it.

And the reason I used the expression was this.

In the first instance, we relied on Your Honor's decision in the Sinclair case which we thought met the basic issues squarely.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

You can rely on my decision.