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

Supreme Court of the United States · Labor Law

Labor LawSecondary BoycottNLRA § 8(b)(4)First Amendmentsecondary boycottneutral employerspolitical boycottin commerce

Facts

On January 9, 1980, the president of the International Longshoremen's Association ordered union members to stop handling cargoes arriving from or destined for the Soviet Union in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. ILA members along the east and gulf coasts refused to service ships carrying Russian cargoes. Allied International, an American importer of Russian wood products, used Waterman Steamship Lines, an American carrier, and John T. Clark & Son, an American stevedore, to bring and unload those goods in Boston. The boycott completely disrupted Allied's shipments, forced renegotiation of its Russian contracts, and caused substantial business losses.

Issue

Does an American union's politically motivated refusal to unload Soviet cargo, directed at employees of American companies, constitute an unlawful secondary boycott under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(B)? Also, is such conduct outside the Act because it is not 'in commerce,' or protected by the First Amendment because its objective is political rather than labor-related?

Rule

Section 8(b)(4)(B) prohibits a union from inducing employees of a person engaged in commerce to strike or refuse to handle goods where an object is to force any person to cease using, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in another's products or to cease doing business with another person. The prohibition is not limited to labor disputes and contains no exemption for political secondary boycotts; when coercive union conduct foreseeably imposes substantial loss on neutral parties, pressure on those neutrals is at least one object of the boycott. NLRA coverage is not barred by the Benz line when the boycott does not affect the maritime operations of foreign ships and instead is an all-American dispute.

🔒

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 directed members supplied through a hiring hall not to load fertilizer produced in Morocco onto trucks for Bayline Terminal Services, a Maryland stevedoring company. The union said it was protesting Morocco's treatment of dissidents; Bayline, the carrier, and the importer were all U.S. companies and had no labor dispute with the union.

If the importer sues for damages under LMRA § 303, which is the strongest argument that the union's conduct violated NLRA § 8(b)(4)(B)?

Explanation. Section 8(b)(4)(B) applies when a union induces employees of a person engaged in commerce to strike or refuse to handle goods and an object is to force any person to cease doing business with another. The majority treated politically motivated refusals to handle goods as within the statute when neutral employers are pressured to cease business relations. No labor-demand objective, picket line, or sole-object showing is required. (Derived from International Longshoremen's Association v. Allied International, Inc. (n.d.).)