Document: 415 U.S. 104 94 S.Ct. 959 39 L.Ed.2d 195 WINDWARD SHIPPING (LONDON) LIMITED et al., Petitioners,v.AMERICAN RADIO ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, al. No. 72—1061. Argued Dec. 3 and 4, 1973. Decided Feb. 19, 1974. Syllabus Petitioners, foreign-flag shipowners agents, sought injunctive relief in the Texas state courts to bar, as tortious under law, picketing of their vessels by respondent unions, which were protesting substandard wages paid foreign crewmen, who manned vessels. The trial court sustained respondents' contention that state-court jurisdiction was pre-empted Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), appellate affirmed. Held: Respondents' activities, did not involve within this country but designed force raise operating costs levels comparable those American shippers, would have materially affected ships' 'maritime operations' precipitated responses field international relations transcending domestic wage-cost decision LMRA regulate. consequently activity 'affecting commerce' defined §§ 2(6) (7) National Act, amended LMRA, erred holding they prevented from entertaining petitioners' injunction suit. Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, 353 138, 77 699, 1 709, followed; Longshoremen Ariadne Co., 397 195, 90 872, 25 218, distinguished. Pp. 109 116. 482 S.W.2d 675, reversed. Robert S. Ogden, Jr., New York City, for petitioners. Howard Schulman, respondents. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. Petitioners are owners managing agents two ships registered laws Liberia fly Liberian flag. They bar unions. denied relief, finding dispute 'arguably' Board therefore pre-empted. Court Civil Appeals affirmed,1 we granted certiorari, 412 927, 93 2749, 37 157 (1973), consider whether activities here complained meaning 49 Stat. 450, 29 U.S.C. 152(6) (7).2 We hold not, reverse judgment Appeals. 2 * Northwind Theomana registry, carrying cargo between ports United States. is owned petitioner Westwind Africa Line, Ltd., a corporation, while SPS Bulkcarriers Corp., managed Windward Shipping (London) British corporation. crews both composed entirely nationals, represented unions employed articles agreement. Respondents maritime apparently representing substantial majority merchant seamen.3 Alarmed an accelerating decline number jobs available members, these agreed undertake collective action against vessels, saw major cause business recession. Specifically, picket ships, calling attention competitive advantage enjoyed such because difference seamen's wages. All parties concede does exist.4 4 occurred at Port Houston, Texas, October 1971. Both docked port, respondents established lines front each vessel. There four pickets assigned vessel, signs read: 5 'ATTENTION TO THE PUBLIC 6 WAGES AND BENEFITS PAID SEAMEN ABOARD VESSEL THEOMANA (NORTHWIND) ARE SUBSTANDARD THOSE OF AMERICAN SEAMEN. THIS RESULTS IN EXTREME DAMAGE OUR WAGE STANDARDS LOSS JOBS. PLEASE DO NOT PATRONIZE VESSEL. HELP WE HAVE NO DISPUTE WITH ANY OTHER ON SITE.' 7 (Printed names six unions.) 8 These supplemented pamphlets similar import.5 instructed discuss with anyone, appear followed instructions. 9 picketing, although neither obstructive nor violent, without effect. other port workers refused cross load unload filed separate suits court, asking enjoin law. primary basis claim induce break pre-existing contracts. presented several defenses, contending particular Act.6 10 contention, properly lay NLRB, That found when 'the arguably either protected section or prohibited NLRA LMRA,'7 see San Diego Building Trades Council Garmon, 359 236, 79 773, 775 (1959), conduct met test. rejected argument interfered operations ships,' McCulloch Sociedad Nacional, etc., 372 10, 83 671, 547 (1963), manner remove it Board's jurisdiction.8 concluded: 11 'If (the picketing) voices complaint urges public patronize engage matters outside commerce. It peaceful publicizing labor dispute, character its validity suggested Court's Marine Cooks case, supra. is, least arguably, LMRA. As such, exclusive determine propriety has been preempted NLRB.'9 12 contend too narrowly construed decisions denying NLRB cases involving ships. begin examining principles determining NLRB. II 13 In series decided over past 17 years,10 discussed application situations might be broadly described disputes flag 709 (1957), leading case on subject. question 1947, precluded diversity suit damages brought States District had undertaken Portland, Oregon, support striking resulted refusal repair awarded 14 This held shipowners' Act. Studying legislative history no indication intended govern crews. On contrary, concluded most revealing strongly bill 'bill rights . workingmen employers.' Id., 144, S.Ct., 703. (Emphasis original.) stated 'inescapably describes boundaries including only our own possessions.' Ibid. 15 Recognition clear congressional purpose apply employers doubtless sufficient reason place But made reluctance intrude law willy-nilly into complex considerations affecting trade, absent mandate do so: 16 'For us run interference delicate there must present affirmative intention Congress clearly expressed. alone facilities necessary make fairly important policy where possibilities discord so evident retaliative certain.' 147, 704. years since decided, way indicated any 'affirmative intention,' continued construe accordance dictates case. 18 reasoning reaffirmed Incres S.S. Co. International Maritime Workers Union, 24, 611, 557 together later. McCulloch, improperly assumed order election Rejecting 'balancing contacts' theory, said: 19 '(T)o follow procedure ultimate require inquire internal discipline all ports.' U.S., 676.11 20 applied rationale situation union ship effort organize crew. Reversing 21 'The prevent unfair practices, like direct elections, based upon circumstances commerce,' employing alien seamen 'commerce' § 2(6), 152(6).' 27, 613. 22 successor read exempt organizational Act's protections merely some directed employer owner vessel port. Longshoremen's Local 1416 218 (1970), protest nonunion longshoremen 'in thus subject regulatory power Board.' 200, S.cT., 874. Ariadne, unlike Incres, primarily engaged should hire unionized nonunionized perform longshoremen's work,12 being fellow workers. specifically noted: '(T) his centered residents.' 199, 23 term used obviously self-defining, certainly Benz, covered literally just much Ariadne. Those deny recognize Congress, words simply intend erase longstanding comity accommodation trade. Lauritzen Larsen, 345 571, 577, 73 921, 925, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953), commented intent respect Jones 1920 words: 24 'But wrote all-comprehending words, clean slate, postscript long enactments governing shipping. enacted regard seasoned body developed experience accustomed dealing admiralty problems reconciling interests accommodating reach nations.'13 even more reluctant attribute disrupt comprehensive construction unrelated commerce solely relations. III 26 inescapable intrusion affairs Incres; seek representation wage shipowner. purport fully delineate threshold makes inapplicable. 27 utilized docks tied up protested contracts At very least, hoped exert pressure forced lost resulting increases virtual self-imposed tariff regain entry ports. Such large-scale increase than negligible impact effect means limited incurred Unlike could accommodated part affect country. 28 situation, lot happy one. A level mollifying significant far-reaching throughout world. boycott avoid difficulties induced detrimental private balance sheets citizenry dependent goods carried bottoms ours. Retaliatory likewise considered, employment tactics probably exacerbate broaden dispute. Virtually none predictable shipowner type, therefore, sort benefiting falls rather Ariadne.14 Since otherwise nature it. Our conclusion involved NLRA,as resolves which, course, one first instance. 874—875. wrong State injunction. 30 Reversed. 31 BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS MARSHALL join, dissenting. 32 Today's reversal end remain disposition remand defenses reached courts, namely (1) proscribe (2) that, event, First Fourteenth Amendments protect conduct.1 33 fact today's finally decide legality obscure significance holding. Ninety-five percent export trade already fled American-flag cheaper, foreign-registered shipping.2 give rise jurisdiction, effectively deprives seamen, among employees commerce, federally weapon try save jobs.3 Additionally, creates new administration making statutory turn identity competitor picketing—a distinction relevant determination contexts jurisdiction.4 34 doubt possesses shipping territorial waters federal laws.5 And concedes fall Ante, 112. 35 After acknowledging paucity exclusion 'commerce,' Court, however, concludes prior construing limitation 2(7), (29 152(6), 152(7), 160) cognizable Board. With respect, I think misreads cases, also fails take account judicial guidance leads contrary conclusion. 36 concedes, relied before us, may employ economic weapons improving positions vis-a -vis Yet relies supporting proposition conclude 'simply (LMRA) accomodation trade,' ante, 112—113, severely Not word sentence supports reading. Rather, rested squarely cognizance will necessarily inquiry understood S.A., seminal area, attempted crew fashion 'to resolve nationals countries laws.' id., 143, 702, 38 'It noted outset actions sprang arose agreement abroad another nation. connection controversy erupted transiently participated picketing.' 142, 701. Similarly, subsequent turned ship's owner. 40 676. 41 issue adjudicate efforts members Again, adjudication examine employer. 27—28, 42 necessitate yet again central recent longshoreman unloading result explaining: 43 'We longshoremen's) ('maritime ships'). short-term, irregular casual respective plainly belied involvement 'internal order.' Application men longshore work, accordingly, threatened likely lead conflict find 44 Thus, appropriate instant order' threaten 'interference law.' Tested principle, conclude, Benz. 45 controlling precedent if correct 'could country.' 114. For forcing characterized shipowners. target persuade shippers concern form response succeed.6 46 right '(v)irtually type (as NLRA) regulate.' 115. 'predictable responses' but, examination Cognizance inquiry. correctly observed, suffices arguable required, instance involves cognizance. (1959). 47 my disagreement rest failure adequately rationalize distinguish states, Nation's light affairs. If examined, demonstrate beginning session, 55, deeply legislating competition, usually enacting discriminatory Myriad hearings reports reflect marine, largely afforded working conditions bargaining fostered shall help compete equal terms share commerce.7 48 highlighted recently 1970, amendments Merchant 1936, 1101 seq., look profit. declaration states '(i)t national defense development States) marine (a) carry water-borne portion import ..' further 'owned operated citizens States, insofar practicable,' 'manned trained efficient citizen personnel.' 1101. See 1920, 861. 1936 furthers aims providing subsidies operation shipping, 1151, 1171, goes far imposing discriminations certain types freight. s 1241. 251, 808 (restricting coastwise trade). Far Congress' policies field, seeks precisely same goals. remotely suggesting constitutes illegal affairs, reaches implies content leave whole problem resolution inconceivable meant regulation area predominantly disparate reflecting parochial interests. 50 affirm 675 (1972). definitions (7), follows: '(6) traffic, transportation, communication Columbia Territory Territory, State, Columbia, points through '(7) burdening obstructing free flow having led tending commerce.' describe themselves brief 'six organizations collectively represent overwhelming practically almost seamen.' Brief 2. petitioners state: contest substantially lower ships.' 19. notes estimates 1/2 times higher costs. n. stated: 'To Public—American Seamen approximately 50% few fraction Seamen. 'American dollars flowing benefits Seamen, hurting payments addition economy loss jobs. 'A strong essential defense. fewer are, weaker position period emergency. 'PLEASE FLAG VESSELS, SAVE JOBS, ECONOMY SUPPORT NATIONAL DEFENSE BY HELPING CREATE STRONG MERCHANT MARINE. 'Our picketed site, _ _' (App. 21). below considered ground advanced respondents, dispositive. express merits contentions. S.W.2d, 678. 680—682. 682. (1957); (1963); (1970). 'aroused vigorous protests governments created Government.' 17, 675. evidnece showed work performed partly labor. 196, 873. included classification 'outside labor' members. '(t)he participation residents, serve work.' basic Danish tort Havana Harbor. Although analysis different here, interesting note arguments common cases. 'candid brash appeal' various amici 'extend enhancing own.' 593, 933. observed time better Congress. & Stewards, AFL Panama 362 365, 80 779, 797 (1960), applicable here. strikingly district Norris-LaGuardia 101 seq. jurisdiction. However, later 18, 676, 'cannot regarded limiting earlier 'whether law' decided.' Obviously stay out significantly Fruit Vegetable Packers Warehousemen, 760, 377 58, 84 1063, 129 (1964); 76, 1073 (Black, J., concurring); Thornhill Alabama, 310 88, 60 736, 1093 (1940). S.Rep.No.91—1080, p. (Chart 7: Projected Decline Seafaring Job Opportunities Foreign Trade Fleet 1969 1980). meagre materials debates concerning contradict notion purposes defining H.R.Rep.No.245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., (1947), 142—144, 701—703, (1957). 198—199, 873—874, language indicating draw 25, Brotherhood Teamsters York, N.H. H.R. 350 155, 76 227, 100 166 (1956), over-the-road trucking freight railroad loading yard 'piggy-backing' truck trailers cars curtailing opportunities employment. railroad, Railway 151 'person' exempted NLRA's definition 'employer.' 152(2). Nonetheless, 'union concerned railroad's) policy,' 'This interpretation permits harmonious effectuation three distinct objectives: provide orderly procedures protecting employers, promote full, expressed 1(b) Act; maintain traditional treatment employer-employee relationships railroads (3) minimize 'diversities conflicts variety local attitudes toward controversies.' Garner 346 485, 490, 74 161, 98 228.' 160 231. contrast, wording statute, history, reading line seamen. supra, 142 701 S.Ct.: beyond voluntarily entering limits subjects itself county. Wildenhus's Case, 1887, 120 1, 385, 565. follows chosen, arising comes waters.' improvement crews' conditions. carefully phrased appeal payment 'substandard results extreme damage standards jobs.' practice need called course mean prevail merits. well question, example, ban 8(b)(7), 158(b)(7), recognitional picketing. Rosen, Area Standards Picketing, Lab.L.J. 67 (1972); Note, Picketing Standards: An Exception Section 1968 Duke L.J. 767. See, e.g., H.R.Rep.No.91—1073 (1970); S.Rep.No.91—1080 U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 4188; Hearings H.R.12324 H.R.12569 Subcommittee House Committee Fisheries, 92d 2d Sess. (1972) (Cargo Ships); H.R.15424, H.R.15425, H.R.15640 91st (1970) (President's Program, pt. 2); S.3287 Senate Commerce, Program); H.R.1897, H.R.2004, H.R.2331 88th (1963) (Maritime Legislation).

Category: 9