Document: 353 U.S. 138 77 S.Ct. 699 1 L.Ed.2d 709 William BENZ et al., Petitioners,v.COMPANIA NAVIERA HIDALGO, S.A., a Corporation. No. 204. Argued March 6, 1957. Decided April 8, Mr. Kneland C. Tanner, Portland, Or., for petitioners. John D. Mosser, respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. While petitioners in this diversity case present several questions, sole one decided is whether Labor Management Relations Act 19471 applies to controversy involving damages resulting from picketing foreign ship operated entirely by seamen under articles while vessel temporarily an American port. We decide that it does not, and therefore do not reach other questions raised parties. 2 The S.S. Riviera on September 3, 1952, sailed into harbor at Oregon, repairs, load cargo wheat, complete insurance survey. It was owned respondent, Panamanian corporation, Liberian flag. crew made up nationals countries than United States, principally German British. They had agreed serve voyage originating Bremen, Germany, period two years, or until returned European A British form agreement opened Bremen. conditions prescribed Maritime Board were incorporated agreement, including wages hours employment, all which specifically set out. further obey lawful commands Master regard ship, stores, cargo, board, boats, shore. 3 On about 9, members went strike board refused orders Master. demanded their term service be reduced, increased, more favorable employment granted.2 work, demanding back pay transportation its cost ports engagement. told continue work they would discharged. When declined he discharged them ordered leave do. This situation continued 26, when striking crewmen left pursuant order States District Court entered possessory libel filed picketed began, ship. 15, designated Sailors' Union Pacific as collective bargaining representative. others acting withdrew picket line October 13, 1952. began 14 so restrained injunction issued action injunctive relief against principal representatives Two days later Local 90 National Organization Masters, Mates Pilots America maintained December stopped writ union second respondent consolidated here. 10, another established vessel. time Atlantic Gulf Coast District, S.I.U.,3 too enjoined 12 third prayer likewise damages. These three cases have been consideration All peaceful. 4 In June 1953, vacated appeal Appeals dismissed moot. trial damage claims. 9 Cir., 205 F.2d 944. port 1954. At court found purpose 'was compel (respondent) re-employ' shorter wage rates those upon articles. result employees firms repairing loading cross forced stand idly without repairs unions contended jurisdiction because pre-empted field. However, judgment well representatives. judgments based common-law theory unlawful Oregon law. no remedy 'is concerned solely with labor relations workers between concerns intended to, nor cover dispute crew.' thought Construction Workers, Affiliated Mine Workers v. Laburnum Corp., 1954, 347 656, 74 833, 98 L.Ed. 1025, governed, but law did permit recovery since unincorporated associations. 233 62.4 This, effect, standing individual unions, granted certiorari settle important question 352 889, 125, 84. 5 should noted outset these actions sprang arose employer operating abroad laws nation. only connection erupted transiently participated picketing. 6 beyond voluntarily entering territorial limits country subjects itself country. Wildenhus' Case, 1887, 120 1, 7 385, 30 565. exercise mandatory discretionary. Often, public policy reasons, local sovereign may exert limited sometimes none all. Cunard Co. Mellon, 1923, 262 100, 43 504, 67 894. follows if Congress chosen, could applicable disputes arising vessels comes within our waters. here narrows intent coverage Act. parties point nothing legislative history indicates any way bring such Indeed contrary, stating 'cover Appeals, though passing question, 'It construed apply, some explicit Congressional indication we are able find Act, amended, situations many points contact bar.' page 65. 8 Our study leaves us convinced fashion resolve ships laws.5 whole background ground industrial strife employers employees. fact, discussion either House has called attention thousands pages least extend circumstances posed appears even occurred sponsoring bill. Report Committee Education presented coauthor bill, Chairman Hartley, stated 'the bill herewith reported formulated rights both workingmen employers.' report declares inadequacies legislation workingman deprived his dignity individual,' correct inadequacies. (Emphasis added.) H.R.Rep. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 4. What said inescapably describes boundaries own possessions. problem new Congress. Seamen's 4, 1915, 38 Stat. 1164, declared seaman advance prohibition 'while waters States.' Id., 1169, 46 U.S.C. § 599(e), U.S.C.A. 599(e). Sandberg McDonald, 1918, 248 185, 39 84, 63 200, covering advancements 'when contract payment where sanctioned * *. Had make void contracts payments few words intention, leaving regulation gathered implication.' 195, 86. added 'such sweeping requirement statute.' Ibid. See also Neilson Rhine Shipping Co., 205, 89, 208. 1920 amended every right demand one-half then earned during voyage. 41 1006, 597, 597. section 'seamen harbors courts shall open enforcement.' Strathearn Steamship Dillon, 1920, 252 348, 40 350, 64 607, upheld applicability pointed out: 10 'taking provisions act same written, think plain manifests place equality far privileges concerned, equal opportunity resort enforcement act. Before amendment recover enforced face contractual obligation contrary. Congress, reasons deemed sufficient, named 355, 352. 11 1928, Jackson Archimedes, 275 463, 48 164, 72 374, involved before Manchester her New York return. advances illegal void. That there 'no intention statute,' said, 'to ports, plain. out case, supra, provision statute *.' 470, 166. Soon thereafter proposals designed prohibit ports. storm diplomatic protest resulted. Great Britain, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada joined vigorously denouncing proposals.6 each instance bills died And 'sweeping provision' specified Act.7 Germany cannot read change For run interference delicate field international must affirmative clearly expressed. alone facilities necessary fairly decision possibilities discord evident retaliative certain. We, therefore, conclude directed rather courts. 13 Affirmed. WHITTAKER took part case. 15 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 16 involves contest came wheat carriage India. paid one-third amount cash carrying grain Orient. competition vessels. 17 interest working aboad Their re-employment better conditions. peacefully interest. 18 sustain today who engaged peaceful conduct precisely regulated Taft-Hartley 19 If, found, prevent vessel, arises secondary boycott condemned 303(a)(1) 20 If force bargain being first certified representative seamen, violation 303(a)(2) 21 violated, injured person sue federal damages, provided 303(b). bases inapplicable conclusion underlying crew. intimates, however, apply suit brought independent contractors whose line, although identical involved. But, assume arguendo subject regulatory nonetheless 303(b) get protection unfair practice indeed ruling 25 International Brotherhood Teamsters, etc. York, N.H. & H.R. 350 155, 160—161, 76 227, 230—231, 100 22 asserted over pressures bear registry. (In matter Pacific, 92 N.L.R.B. 547), vessel.1 pp. 560—561. 23 peace along waterfront full free flow commerce disciplinary agencies whom entrusted job enforcement.2 Only applying centralized controls can avoid 'diversities conflicts likely variety procedures attitudes toward controversies.' Garner Chaufferus Helpers Union, 346 485, 490, 161, 166, 228. 24 There hiatus scheme true 1025. facts alleged complaint, true, might constitute practices Act; provided, administrative I see answer state meaning Weber Anheuser-Busch Inc., 348 468, 75 480, 99 546. mulcted affecting commerce, done. 61 136, 29 141, 141. demands transmitted 7, identifying himself delegate Pacific. None belonged union. a.m. party cabin. come crew's quarters refused. claim filthy existed aboard contaminated food served, court, after hearing evidence personally inspecting issue findings. intermittent cross-petition review question. petition denied. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A. Benz, 890, 126, 85. Petitioners rely bolster argument need say inapposite, without, course, intimating view result. First seek support AFL Moore Dry Dock 547 (1950). employer, owner drydock, claiming drydock constituted practice. gave felt forerunner Maritima Sansoc Limitada, Case 20—RC—809, May 1950, CCH NLRB Decisions, 1950—1951, 10,081, represent manned Panama majority stockholders citizens countries, internal economy registry ownership thus clear Norris Grain Seafarers' 232 Minn. 91, N.W.2d 94. elevator Duluth, Minn., charging affiliate picketing, elevator. Though Canadian (affiliated union) defendant, ran plaintiff-employer defendant-union. Foreign Rel.: 1928 830—838 (Dept.State 1942); id.: 1929 1005—1009 1943); 1931 808—814 1946); 1932 959—960 1948). As 1856 faced related problem. Brown Duchesne, 1857, How. 183, 60 595, construing patent silent held expressed subjecting use improvements stopping laws. said: 'We ought spirit made—that is, founded justice—and strained technical constructions evidently contemplated, departing principle legislating, going object accomplish.' 197. main gate San Francisco shipyard, undergoing recognize exclusive After filed, Board's Regional Office, vessel's Court, Director administratively petition, 'inasmuch involved.' sustained Director's Board, assumed Director, violated 8(b)(4) (A) Minnesota Supreme similar one. An dock company unloading company, served notice cease crews. concluded governed Federal 'This relationship Company employes acts defendants done neither seeks regulate Union.' 109, 94, 104.

Category: 6