American President Lines, Ltd. v. International Longshore & Warehouse Union
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14162
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- LMRA §303 provides a damages remedy for unions’ unfair labor practices under NLRA §8(b)(4).
- APL and ILWU dispute Seward, Alaska longshore work within the AMEA and AALA framework.
- Arbitration under AALA—Alaska Arbitrator initially orders ILWU unit 60 to receive Seward work; APL pays in lieu of time cards.
- APL contends ILWU’s arbitration interpretation violated NLRA §8(b)(4) and §8(e) by forcing a hot cargo/cease-work arrangement with Samson.
- District court dismissed for lack of §303 standing; court of appeals reverses to address merits on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §303 standing require vacating arbitration? | APL argues no vacatur exhaustion is required. | ILWU urges exhaustion as implied bar to §303 claims. | Standing does not require vacating the award. |
| May §303 action challenge arbitration conduct without vacating? | APL seeks damages for union conduct at arbitration. | ILWU contends merits barred by arbitration process. | §303 permits challenge to union conduct during arbitration; merits considered on remand. |
| Does NLRB dismissal preclude a §303 suit? | APL can pursue §303 despite NLRB dismissal. | ILWU argues administrative dismissal forecloses §303 relief. | NLRB dismissal does not preclude §303 action. |
| Does injury arise ‘by reason of’ a §8(b)(4) violation? | Damages stem from union’s improper arbitration interpretation. | ILWU contends injury too indirect or speculative. | APL sufficiently alleges damages caused by §8(b)(4) violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fulton v. Plumbers & Steamfitters, 695 F.2d 402 (9th Cir. 1982) (tests for §303 standing via nexus and injury relationship)
- Mead v. Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n, Local 839, 523 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1975) (standing for primary employers under §303)
- Peltzman v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc., 497 F.2d 332 (2d Cir. 1974) (collateral estoppel and §303 post-arbitration context)
- Textile Workers Union of Am. v. Lincoln Mills of Ala., 353 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1957) (federal labor law framework and §301/§303 interplay)
- Juneau Spruce Corp., 342 U.S. 237 (1952) (§303 action independent of NLRA enforcement)
- Charvet v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 736 F.2d 1572 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (neutral/primary employer standing under §303)
- Mead v. Retail Clerks Int’l Ass’n, Local Union No. 839, 523 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir. 1975) (section 303 standing and injury nexus)
- NLRB v. Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders’ Union, 623 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1980) (union signatory clauses violate §8(e))