Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DOUDS EX REL. NLRB v. SEAFARERS' INTL. UNION

February 26, 1957

Charles T. DOUDS, Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner,
v.
SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ATLANTIC and GULF DISTRICT, AFL-CIO; International Association of Masters, Mates & Pilots, Inc., AFL-CIO; and National Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, AFL-CIO, individually and as agents for each other, Respondents



The opinion of the court was delivered by: BRUCHHAUSEN

The Nature of This Proceeding.

The Government, through its agency, National Labor Relations Board, has petitioned this Court to prevent the three respondent associations from continuing a secondary boycott at the shipyard of the Monti Marine Corporation. The respondents are hereinafter termed, 'The Seafarers', 'The Pilots' and 'The Engineers'.

 The Congress by the National Labor Relations Act proclaimed that neither employers, employees or labor organizations shall 'engage in acts or practices which jeopardize the public health, safety or interest.'

 It is conceded that on or about January 14, 1957, Monti Marine Corporation, pursuant to the said Act, filed with the said Board a charge that the three respondents engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(A) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b)(4)(A), the section prohibiting secondary boycotting, also that the charge was investigated by the Regional Director of the said Board.

 The respondents, admittedly, have no grievance against Monti Marine Corporation. Their dispute is with American Coal Shipping, Inc., a company having an interest in the S.S. Paine, a ship was to the Monti Shipyard on December 29, 1956, for reactivation. The ship was under the control of the Maritime Administration, which had contracted with Monti to recondition and repair it.

 The Substance of the Complaint, Charging Secondary Boycotting.

 Monti, the employer of several hundred persons, under the aforementioned circumstances, was not lawfully subject to picketing. The Government's charge of secondary boycotting, in substance, is that the three organizations picketed Monti so as to force it to cease doing business with the Maritime Administration and to force or require Maritime Administration to cease doing business with American Coal Shipping, Inc. and to force or require subcontractors and other employers doing business with Monti to cease doing business with it.

 The respondents do not deny that the statute prohibits such secondary boycotting. Their principal defenses are of a technical nature and are later evaluated.

 It must be borne in mind that the Statute, Section 10(l) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(l), does not empower this Court to adjudicate the issues. That function is assigned to the Board, before which the case is still pending. The petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks upon a finding that there is reasonable cause to believe that the charges made are true.

 The Evidence Establishes that the Respondents Engaged in a Secondary Boycott.

 It is undisputed that the picketing by the respondents resulted in a complete cessation of work by all of the hundreds of employees at the yard and that activities were not resumed until the S.S. Paine was towed elsewhere, some weeks later. The respondents' claim that they limited their picketing to the employees of the S.S. Paine and refrained from picketing the entire Monti plant is not supported by the evidence. The Government produced a number of witnesses on this point. The witness, Adolph Kruger, a shop steward of Local 1972 of the Machinists Union, and a Monti employer, testified that he was urged to respect the picket line. The witness, Charles Montanti testified that Mr. Bernstein, who apparently had charge of pickets on December 31, 1956, informed him that no one would be permitted to cross the picket line and enter the yard. The witness, George Jorgensen, corroborated this testimony. Both of them mentioned that the pickets were stationed outside of the main gate to the yard. The witness, Michael Montiori, a guard at the shipyard, stated that there were thirty or more pickets near the gate and that they instructed employees of Monti and others not to work, but to observe the picket line. The witness, Ralph Perrotta, employed by Monti, was warned not to pass the picket line, despite his assertion that he was not employed on the S.S. Paine. The witness, Vito Colletto, a supervisor and estimator for Monti, testified to the same effect.

 None of the respondents' witnesses gave evidence to the contrary or, in fact, did they allude in any way to the picketing activities at the Monti yard, excepting that the witness Osborne Rowell, in charge of the pickets for one of the respondents, on cross-examination stated that his men spoke to a large number of Monti employees.

 These actions of the respondents constitute a secondary boycott, not within the 'common situs' exceptions of the Moore Dry Dock case, 92 N.L.R.B. No. 93, as approved by this Circuit in National Labor Relations Board v. Service Trade Chauffeurs, etc., 2 Cir., 191 F.2d 65. See also Douds v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 139 F.Supp. 702.

 The Principal Defense of the Respondents, 'The Pilots' and 'The Engineers', Is That Their Members Are Employed in Supervisory ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.