Longshoremen Ila Local 27 (Kingcome Navigation)

8 Cited authorities

McCulloch v. Sociedad Nacional
372 U.S. 10 (1963) Cited 284 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the law of the flag state ordinarily governs the internal affairs of a ship"
Labor Board v. Radio Engineers
364 U.S. 573 (1961) Cited 138 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[although] it might be better . . . to intrust [jurisdictional disputes] to arbitrators, . . . Congress, after discussion and consideration, decided to intrust this decision to the Board"
Longshoremen v. Allied International, Inc.
456 U.S. 212 (1982) Cited 74 times
Finding foreseeability relevant in determining damages, and rejecting argument that union did not foresee that refusing to handle a shipper's cargo would result in disruption of the shipper's business as facially implausible
Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo
353 U.S. 138 (1957) Cited 143 times
Holding the LMRA inapplicable to the picketing of a foreign ship operated entirely by foreign seamen
Longshoremen v. Ariadne Co.
397 U.S. 195 (1970) Cited 51 times
Holding that American residents hired by a foreign ship to work on an American dock did not involve the internal affairs of a foreign ship
American Radio Assn. v. Mobile S. S. Assn
419 U.S. 215 (1974) Cited 31 times
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA. No. 73-748. Argued October 21, 1974. Decided December 17, 1974. Respondents, an association representing stevedoring companies, and a shipper, sought injunctive relief in an Alabama state court against picketing of a foreign-flag ship by petitioner maritime unions which were protesting as substandard the wages paid the foreign crewmen who manned the ship. The trial court issued a temporary injunction, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioners
Windward Shipping v. American Radio Assn
415 U.S. 104 (1974) Cited 30 times
In Windward, American maritime unions picketed foreign-flag vessels to call attention to the lower wages paid to foreign seamen and to the adverse effect of these lower wages on American seamen.
Incres S. S. Co. v. Maritime Workers
372 U.S. 24 (1963) Cited 37 times
In Incres the Court held that organizational picketing by an American union seeking to organize foreign seamen on a foreign-flag vessel also was outside the Board's jurisdiction.

Longshoremen Ila Local 27 (Kingcome Navigation)

8 Cited authorities

Holding that "the law of the flag state ordinarily governs the internal affairs of a ship"

Holding that "[although] it might be better . . . to intrust [jurisdictional disputes] to arbitrators, . . . Congress, after discussion and consideration, decided to intrust this decision to the Board"

Finding foreseeability relevant in determining damages, and rejecting argument that union did not foresee that refusing to handle a shipper's cargo would result in disruption of the shipper's business as facially implausible

Holding the LMRA inapplicable to the picketing of a foreign ship operated entirely by foreign seamen

Holding that American residents hired by a foreign ship to work on an American dock did not involve the internal affairs of a foreign ship

In Windward, American maritime unions picketed foreign-flag vessels to call attention to the lower wages paid to foreign seamen and to the adverse effect of these lower wages on American seamen.

In Incres the Court held that organizational picketing by an American union seeking to organize foreign seamen on a foreign-flag vessel also was outside the Board's jurisdiction.