Document: 342 U.S. 237 72 S.Ct. 235 96 L.Ed. 275 INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION et al.v.JUNEAU SPRUCE CORP. No. 280. Argued Dec. 6, 1951. Decided Jan. 7, 1952. Messrs. Richard Gladsteen, Allan Brotsky, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners. Mr. Manley B. Strayer, Portland, Or., respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In spring 1947, respondent purchased certain properties manufacture lumber, including a sawmill at Juneau, Alaska, and commenced operations. Shortly thereafter, International Wood-workers America requested negotiation contract with respondent, claiming representation majority respondent's employees. A bargaining agreement was signed that union on November 3, 1947. 2 Respondent decided to ship its lumber ports in Canada United States acquired barges purpose. Respondent's policy utilize own employees load barges. October, petitioner, Local 16 Longshoremen's Warehousemen's Union, asked men be allowed This request denied. The repeated following again Petitioner established picket line plant April 10, 1948. Most refused cross mill shut down. reopened July 19, 1948, but picketing continued. notified Canadian locals products were unfair. unable unload or Puget Sound due refusal longshoremen work vessels. On October 11, closed down lack storage facilities hold accumulating lumber. Picketing not discontinued until May 9, 1949. 3 August filed charge against alleging violations § 8(b)(4)(D) National Labor Relations Act, as amended by Management 1947,1 61 Stat. 136, 141, 29 U.S.C. (Supp. II) §§ 151, 158, U.S.C.A. ground attempted induce assignment particular members. Following hearing pursuant 10(k) 160(k), Board determined 1, 1949, represented entitled barge-loading work. 82 N.L.R.B. 650. meantime, had suit damages both under 303(a)(4) Act.2 asked, an complaint, from 27, After trial before jury, awarded judgment $750,000 plus costs. Court Appeals Ninth Circuit affirmed. 189 F.2d 177. case is here certiorari. 857, 89. 4 First. brought District Territory Alaska. And question which lies threshold whether court 'district States' within meaning 303(b) Act.3 That has jurisdiction district courts law created it. 48 101, 101. Yet vesting it does necessarily make all varied functions Judicial Code. See Reynolds v. States, 98 145, 154, 25 244; McAllister 141 174, 11 949, 35 693; Burroughs, 289 159; 163, 53 574, 576, 77 1096; Mookini 303 201, 205, 58 543, 545, 748. words commonly describe constitutional Article III Constitution, legislative have long been Territories.4 supra, page 545. But we think context this legislation they are used exercise courts. conferred 303(b)5 made 'subject limitations provisions 301'. Section 301 lifts governing respects amount controversy citizenship parties; defines capacity labor unions sue sued; restricts enforceability money assets; specifies over service process.6 Congress concerned reshaping labor-management legal relations; taking precise steps declared announced objectives. One those elimination obstacles suits federal It revised jurisdictional requirements courts, applicable any technical sense States. Act extends full sweep Alaska well states other territories.7 indeed only recourse could had. Even if court' 303(b), plainly would 'any purposes section. As such might dispute depending aspects territorial examined. since lifted restrictive preclude having courts' jurisdiction, more consonant uniform, national restrictions upon conferred. reading not, sure, take their historic, sense. literalness no sure touchstone purpose closely approximated, believe, giving historic phrase looser, liberal special legislation. 5 Second. main contention petitioners read light 8(b)(4)(D)8 renders illegal takes place after face determination acts complained unfair practices. If conclusion warranted, there must reversal reflected present most part accrued prior decision Board, Act,9 committed practice 8(b)(4)(D). 6 substantially identical conduct condemned. gives rise administrative finding;10 (a)(4), damages. fact two sections identity language yet specify different remedies strong confirmation our provided independent each other. Certainly nothing makes remedy dependent committed. Rather, opposite seems true. For disputes proscribed rendered unlawful 'for section only,' thus setting apart private redress, also subjected process. first attempt resolve means can move 10(b) (c) cease desist order11 limitation power, provision compliance 'with voluntary adjustment dispute,' shall dismissed. These provisions, limiting curtailing find counterpart redress contained 303(a)(4). explained Senator Taft, author, 'retains simply right organization undertakes secondary boycott strike.'12 7 clear, pressure employer falls prescribed category which, so far material here, forcing requiring him assign 'to organization' rather than 'in another 'class.' Here row between outside inside union. temporarily acceded claim group did withdraw condemned Petitioners, representing one employing labor, trying get union, competition expense employers Act. Whether condemnation wise unwise concern. represents conventional sanctions. 8 Affirmed. provides: '(b) agents— '(4) engage in, encourage strike concerted course employment use, manufacture, process, transport, otherwise handle goods, articles, materials, commodities perform services, where object thereof is: * (D) trade, craft, class class, unless failing conform order certification determining representative performing work: Provided, subsection (b) construed person enter premises (other his employer), engaged ratified approved whom required recognize Act; *.' '(a) unlawful, only, industry activity affecting commerce, is— Nothing Act.' 187(a)(4). 'Whoever injured business property reason (of) violation (a) may therefor subject hereof without respect controversy, parties, recover sustained cost suit.' 187(b). new Code creates judicial districts Columbia, 28 88, 88; Hawaii, 91, 91; Puerto Rico, 119, 119; none Canal Zone, Virgin Islands, note supra. Suits contracts commerce defined organizations, regard parties. Any whose activities affect bound agents. sued entity behalf enforceable assets, individual member assets. '(c) actions proceedings organizations deemed (1) maintains principal office, (2) duly authorized officers agents acting employee '(d) summons, subpena, process officer agent organization, such, constitute organization. '(e) section, 'agent' responsible acts, specific performed actually subsequently controlling.' 185. 2(6), 152(6), include etc., state territory territory. notes 2, 9 'Whenever charged paragraph (4)(D) 8(b), empowered directed hear determine out arisen, unless, ten days notice filed, parties submit satisfactory evidence adjusted, agreed methods of, dispute. Upon dispute, dismissed.' 10 finding basis (c). issued 90 1753. Juneau Spruce Corp., 650, 655. 12 93 Cong.Rec. 4858; Legislative History p. 1371.

Category: 6