International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · Administrative Law

Administrative LawLabor LawAgencySecondary BoycottsNLRAsection 8(b)(4)section 2(13)secondary boycott

Facts

The ILA was engaged in labor disputes with two nonunion Florida stevedoring companies and asked Japanese unions for support. The Japanese unions then warned importers, exporters, and shipping companies that their members would refuse to unload citrus fruit in Japan if it had been loaded in Florida by nonunion workers, causing all Florida-to-Japan citrus shipments for the 1990-91 season to be diverted to Tampa for loading by union stevedores. Unfair labor practice charges were filed against the ILA by the two stevedoring companies and the Canaveral Port Authority. The Board found no direct unlawful conduct by the ILA itself, but held the ILA liable by treating the Japanese unions as its agents because the ILA requested their help and benefited from their actions.

Issue

May the NLRB attribute threats made in Japan by Japanese unions to a domestic union under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) solely because the domestic union requested support and benefited from the resulting boycott? More specifically, were the Japanese unions agents of the ILA under NLRA § 2(13) and ordinary common-law agency principles?

Rule

Under NLRA § 2(13), agency questions are governed by ordinary common-law agency rules. An agency relationship arises only when the alleged principal has the right to control the alleged agent's conduct with respect to the matters entrusted to it; mere authorization, ratification, shared objectives, labor solidarity, or benefit from another's conduct does not by itself create agency.

🔒

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.

The Great Lakes Warehouse Union in Cleveland is in a dispute with a nonunion loading company in Ohio. Union officers ask an unaffiliated dockworkers' federation in Brazil to "help however you can," and the Brazilian federation independently threatens Brazilian importers that its members will not unload cargo handled by the Ohio company; the Cleveland union has no right to direct the federation's tactics.

If the Board seeks to hold the Cleveland union liable for the Brazilian federation's threats under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), which is the strongest conclusion?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, NLRA § 2(13) incorporates ordinary common-law agency rules. Those rules require that the alleged principal have the right to control the alleged agent's conduct on the entrusted matter. Mere solicitation of support, shared labor solidarity, and resulting benefit are insufficient. Because the Cleveland union had no control over the Brazilian federation, the threats cannot be attributed to it. (Derived from International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO v. National Labor Relations Board (n.d.).)