International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1416, AFL-CIO v. Ariadne Shipping Company

PETITIONER: International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1416, AFL-CIO
RESPONDENT: Ariadne Shipping Company
LOCATION: Dodge County Juvenile Court

DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1969-1970)
LOWER COURT: State appellate court

CITATION: 397 US 195 (1970)
ARGUED: Jan 13, 1970
DECIDED: Mar 09, 1970

Facts of the case


Media for International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1416, AFL-CIO v. Ariadne Shipping Company

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 13, 1970 in International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1416, AFL-CIO v. Ariadne Shipping Company

Warren E. Burger:

Mr. Waldman in 231 International Longshoremen against the Ariadne Shipping Co.

Mr. Waldman you may proceed whenever you're ready.

Seymour M. Waldman:

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.

This case brings up for review an order of the District Court of Appeals in the State of Florida which affirms a permanent injunction against picketing.

The picketing was of the kind that is generally known as area standards picketing.

By which we mean that a union which does not necessarily represent the employees in a particular establishment than in this case the union did not, but which does represent employees engaged in the same work in other establishments in the area pickets to publicize the failure of the employer to meet the wage standards or other employment conditions under which his own employees are being employed.

Warren E. Burger:

Does that claim depend upon whether this record does or does not show the participation in Longshoremen work by American nationals not part of the ship's crew?

Seymour M. Waldman:

No, no.

We take the position Your Honor that record is quite clear and that there is no evidence to the contrary that there was participation by American nationals not part of the ship's crew, but we take the alternative condition -- alternative position that have the facts been otherwise and had the record been quite different from what it is and had the record disclosed which it did not, that all of the longshore work but admittedly longshore work was performed by members of the ship's crew than the National Labor Relations Board would still have exclusive jurisdiction and this Court's cases as I shall develop later dealing solely with shipboard relations, labor relations between the crew acting qua crew and the vessel have no applicability to longshore work and do not withdraw jurisdiction from the National Labor Relations Board over longshore labor disputes resulting out of operations wholly within the territorial confines of the United States.

Warren E. Burger:

In other words, foreign-flag ship can't bring its own longshoremen as part of the ship's company and escape the reach of the board?

Seymour M. Waldman:

That's correct Your Honor.

As I shall develop, it is no different from any foreign employer employing aliens wholly within the geographical jurisdiction of the United States to sift the Fiat automobile manufacturing company of Italy where to establish an automobile plant then Detroit and try to staff it wholly with Italian nationals as suppose is conceivable.

We have no question and that is what we urge upon this Court that in that situation, that operation would be subject to the federal labor laws as well as other federal regulatory laws, and we are in effect no different.

This is work not traditionally seamen's work.

This is work performed as much on shore as on ship.

It is work wholly within the geographical confines and the considerations which impel this Court to hold in the three cases relied upon by the Florida courts that shipboard labor relations are not within the jurisdiction of the labor board are totally absent here.

Potter Stewart:

There maybe one remaining issue may their not which you assume to be resolved and assume to be a fact, and that is that longshoremen's work is involved here.

Now, as I understand as they claim these ships carry no freight, no cargo, no automobiles anymore, and that what's involved here is simply carrying passenger suitcases onboard, didn't --

Seymour M. Waldman:

Well --

Potter Stewart:

May there not be an issue as to whether or not that is traditionally work of the crew, the purser staff and so on of ship or whether it is necessarily longshoreman's --

Seymour M. Waldman:

Well, Your Honor again, I have got to distinguish between what the record shows and what they contend.

And again, I have to make an alternative contention.

I have to say that on the basis of this record that point does not arise, but were the record to be otherwise, we would still take sharp issue with them.

First, the record does show and it is the only testimony in the record that there was loading of cargo, automobiles, etcetera.

They claim the contrary; there is no evidence to that effect in the record.

Second of all however, they admit that there was the loading and unloading of baggage and there was the loading aboard of ship stores.

There is actually other work such as handling of lines that is traditionally longshore work and we pointed out particularly in our reply brief that this is work that the National Labor Relations Board has already traditionally and as a matter of it's rulings held to be longshore work, and it has done that on the basis of the industrial practice that prevails in this country.

We have cited for example the NLRB certification of the longshore unit in the port of New York, which is of course by far the largest port in the nation, and that certification in express terms applies to the loading of cargo including baggage and ship stores.

We have cited the case on the West Coast in which the board assumed jurisdiction over a jurisdictional dispute under Section 10 (k) involving expressly the handling of passenger baggage aboard a foreign cruise ship.

And again on the basis of industrial practice where this is longshore work and is historically longshore work awarded this work to the employees represented by the Longshoremen's Union on the West Coast.