Document: 397 U.S. 195 90 S.Ct. 872 25 L.Ed.2d 218 INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S LOCAL 1416, AFL-CIO, Petitioner,v.ARIADNE SHIPPING COMPANY, Limited, et al. No. 231. Argued Jan. 13, 1970. Decided March 9, Seymour M. Waldman, New York City, for petitioner. Richard Leslie, Miami, Fla., respondents. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question presented here is whether National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 151 seq., pre-empts state jurisdiction to enjoin peaceful picketing protesting substandard wages paid by foreign-flag vessels American longshoremen working in ports. Florida courts held that there was no pre-emption, citing McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional, 372 10, 83 671, 9 547 (1963), and Incres Steamship Co. International Maritime Workers Union, 24, 611, 557 (1963). We granted certiorari. 396 814, 79, 24 66 (1969). reverse. 2 In 1966 respondents, a Liberian corporation Panamanian corporation, operated cruise ships Caribbean from Port Everglades Florida. Respondent Ariadne Shipping Company S.S. Ariadne, registry, with crew subject ship's articles. Evangeline Bahama Star, uncontradicted evidence showed '(l)oading ship, stowage loading automobiles, cargo ship stowage' occurred whenever either vessel berthed at or '(p)art it (performed) employees some outside labor.' petitioner labor organization representing Miami area. Although none those doing longshore work belonged union, docked May 1966, stationed picket near patrol placard being done under wage conditions.1 Respondents obtained temporary injunctive relief against Circuit Court Dade County.2 That court rejected petitioner's contention matter pre-empted, holding beyond reach regulatory power Board, hence could be enjoined, since violated law. injunction affirmed District Appeal Third brief per curiam order Incres. So.2d 238 (1967). Thereafter Court, without further hearing, made permanent. again affirmed, although noting testimony 'tended show' carried on protest work. 215 51, 53 (1968).3 Supreme denied review an unreported order. 3 construed Act preclude Board over disputes concerning certain maritime operations vessels. Specifically, Incres, U.S., 27, S.Ct., 613, 'maritime employing alien seamen are not 'commerce' within meaning 2(6) (of Act).' See also Benz Compania Naviera Hidalgo, 353 138, 77 699, 709 (1957). This construction statute, however, addressed situations which regulation relations would necessitate inquiry into 'internal discipline order' foreign vessel, intervention thought likely 'raise considerable disturbance only field law but our international well.' McCulloch, 19, 676. 4 temporarily port picketed seamen's supporting demands more favorable conditions than articles they signed law, upon joining port. union petitioned representation election among members Honduran-flag who were already represented Honduran certified Again, formed 'for primary purpose organizing ships.' 25—26, 612. these cases, we concluded that, primarily concerns strife between employers employees, reasonably expect Congress have stated expressly any intention include its coverage their crews. Thus find such implication, particularly do so thrust 'a delicate relations,' Benz, 147, 704. Assertion governed might well provoke 'vigorous protests governments * problems Government,' 17, 675, 'invite retaliatory action other nations,' Id., 21, 677. Moreover, construe embrace involving impute highly unlikely departing 'the well-established rule flag ordinarily governs internal affairs ship,' principle frequently recognized treaties countries. Ibid. 5 considerations informed Court's statute cases above clearly inapplicable situation here. participation does obscure fact this dispute centered residents, employed each serve rather casual There occasional workers involved law.4 They hired exclusively docks longshoremen, respondents' critical then activities residents ships' found scope Act. 6 hold excluded operations. longshoremen's short-term, irregular connection respective plainly belied involvement part order.' Application United States resolve men work, accordingly, threatened interference lead conflict therefore 2(6), thus been Board.5 7 exclusive pre-emptive 'arguably subject' 8 San Diego Building Trades Council, Millmen's Local 2020 Garmon, 359 236, 245, 79 773, 779, 775 (1959). case met test. union's rates below established area standards arguably constituted protected activity 7. Steelworkers America, AFL-CIO NLRB, 376 492, 498—499, 84 899, 903—904, 11 863 (1964); Garner Teamsters Chauffeurs & Helpers Union 776, 346 485, 499—500, 74 161, 170—171, 98 L.Ed. 228 (1953). Reversed. WHITE, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE STEWART join, concurring. 10 I agree majority error concluding govern operators while However, rest reversal conclusion conduct "arguably Act.' proscribed possible neither nor prohibited prohibition. If provided effective mechanism whereby employer obtain determination unprotected, 'arguably' should require refrain interfering deference expertise national uniformity treatment offered NLRB. But faced protected' given present federal adequate means obtaining evaluation may himself seek left unsatisfactory remedy using 'self help' pickets try charge unfair practice. So long effectively determinations NLRB actually except when willing threaten use force deal picketing, determined actually, arguably, immune judicial control. To extent (1959), reconsidered. concur judgment because my view record indicates peaceful, nonobstructive public A front terminal through passengers embarked disembarked. sign alleging unsafe, passed out handbills same effect. four paragraphs. Paragraphs signs, distributing stating, alleging, inferring unsafe. abandoned appeal provisions before us. Paragraph set aside appeal. n. 3, infra. provision It prohibits from: 'Picketing patrolling signs placards indicating exists (respondents) (petitioner), statement, legend language (that respondents) pay wages.' Initially directed Eastern Lines, Inc., acted general agent. injunction, 193 73 (1966), whereupon shifted themselves. paragraph '(b)y manner means, including distribution handbills, inducing attempting induce customers potential cease business (respondents).' 52 1. put one side dock, entirely crew, pursuant has reached similar situations. e.g., Longshoremen's Warehousemen's 161 N.L.R.B. 451 (1966); Marine Cooks Stewards 156 753 Assn., 116 1183 (1956). Cf. Uravic F. Jarka Co., 282 234, 51 111, 75 312 (1931). Our makes unnecessary consider absence illegal objective, prohibition publicize deprived freedom speech violation First Fourteenth Amendments.

Category: 9