Allied International, Inc. v. International Longshoremen's Association

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1981 · Labor Law

Labor LawSecondary BoycottNLRASherman ActAdmiraltysection 8(b)(4)section 303secondary boycott

Facts

Allied imported Russian wood products and arranged for Waterman Steamship to carry them to the United States, where John T. Clark & Son would unload the ships using longshoremen obtained through an ILA/Local 799 hiring hall. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, ILA president Thomas Gleason ordered ILA members to stop handling cargoes bound for or arriving from the Soviet Union. As a result, Waterman cancelled or altered scheduled deliveries, unloaded cargo in Boston or Montreal, repudiated one transport agreement, and Allied incurred storage, demurrage, and security costs. ILA representatives later told Allied that no ILA members would unload any cargo originating in the USSR.

Issue

Whether the ILA's politically motivated refusal to handle Soviet cargo stated a claim under NLRA section 8(b)(4) and LMRA section 303, whether the conduct violated section 1 of the Sherman Act, and whether Allied could maintain an admiralty tort claim for interference with business relations based on the same conduct.

Rule

Section 8(b)(4) forbids an American union from inducing employees of a neutral American employer to refuse to handle goods when an object of that conduct is to force cessation of business with another person, and that forbidden object may be inferred from the virtually inevitable and foreseeable consequences of the boycott when the conduct is not protected primary activity. The section is not limited to disputes arising from traditional labor disputes and is not avoided merely because the boycott is politically motivated by foreign events, so long as applying the Act does not require interference with foreign entities' internal affairs. A union boycott unrelated to legitimate union interests is outside the statutory labor antitrust exemption, but the Sherman Act still does not reach a limited union refusal to work absent a commercial or anticompetitive objective. Section 303 supersedes tort remedies based on the same peaceful secondary activity.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Baltimore, the Harbor Freight Workers Union instructs members employed by Chesapeake Dock Services, a stevedoring company, not to unload cargo manufactured in Nation Z after Nation Z suppresses student protests abroad. Chesapeake has no labor dispute with the union, and the stoppage predictably causes Atlantic Meridian Shipping to cancel deliveries for Lakefront Paper Supply, a domestic importer.

If Lakefront Paper Supply sues for damages under LMRA § 303, which is the strongest argument that it has stated a claim?

Explanation. The majority held that § 8(b)(4) is not limited to traditional labor disputes and is not avoided merely because the boycott is politically motivated. Where a union induces employees of a neutral employer to engage in a concerted refusal to handle goods, a prohibited object to force cessation of business may be inferred from the virtually inevitable and foreseeable consequences, so long as the conduct is not protected primary activity.