*1 LABOR NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, McCULLOCH, NA BOARD, v. SOCIEDAD RELATIONS et al. HONDURAS. MARINEROS CIONAL de de 11-12, Argued December 1962. No. 107. February 18, 1963.* Decided Regional Director, La *Together 91, McLeod, National with No. A., Board, Empresa Vapores, S. bor v. Hondurena de Relations America, AFL-CIO, Em No.-93, National Maritime Union of Vapores, A., presa Hondurena de both on certiorari argued Appeals Circuit, decided for the Second States Court of on the dates. same
i i *2 Dominick argued Manoli for petitioners L. the cause in 91 and him Nos. 107. With on briefs for Regional Director and members of the National Labor Relations Board in all three cases were Stuart Rothman and Norton J. Come. Cooper argued
Herman E. the cause for petitioner him No. 93. With on the brief was H. Howard Ostrin. Rhyne argued Charles S. for respondent the cause him Rhyne. No. 107. With on the brief Brice W. argued Orison S. respondent Marden the cause for 91 and him Nos. 93. With on the brief was Chester Bordeau. Cox, by special argued
Solicitor General leave of Court, curiae, the cause for States, urging the United as amicus him Acting affirmance. With on the brief were Assistant Attorney Guilfoyle, General Daniel M. Friedman and Morton Hollander. curiae, urging by
Briefs of amici filed affirmance, were King- Lawrence Hunt the Government the United dom of by Britain and Northern Robert Ireland, Great Canada, by MacCrate for James F. Sams for the Govern- Republic Honduras, by ment of the and Giardino Alfred Company. for the Fruit United Woll, A urging brief reversal was filed J. Albert Mayer, Robert C. Theodore St. Antoine and E. J. Thomas Harris for the American Federation of Labor and Organizations, of Industrial as amicus curiae. of the Court. opinion delivered Clark
Mr. Justice facts, ques- the same involving cases, companion These Act, Relations Labor the National coverage tion the §§C. 641, U. 73 Stat. amended, Stat. in the doing and business organized corporation A seq. et seagoing vessels beneficially owns Amer- Latin States, sailings between United regular make prod- corporation’s transporting the ports other ican legally owned each of the supplies; other ucts flies corporation, American subsidiary foreign aby and has foreign crew a nation, carries flag of question flag. The nation of its with the other contacts engaged crews the Act extends whether arising is Labor Rela- National operation. a maritime such in. *3 applica- on the proceeding in a representation Board tions it does and held that Maritime Union of the tion National The vessels’ 287. L. 134 N. R. B. an election. ordered Di- Regional Board’s enjoin the sought to owner District Court for election, but holding the from rector requested denied the New York District of Southern for the Appeals of The Court Supp. F. 200 484. relief. did not the Act holding that reversed, Circuit Second the Board and thus here operations maritime apply 222. The F. 2d 300 the election. to direct power no had peti- and it in the proceeding, intervened had M. U. N. Regional as did the (No. 93), a writ of certiorari for tioned District 91). United (No. Meanwhile, Director of the on Columbia, District of for the crewmen, enjoined agent of the vessels’ foreign bargaining Supp. 201 F. 82. We No. 107. Board members certiorari, 370 U. S. petitions of the three each granted argument.1 cases for and consolidated the 915, 1 Appeals for perfected the Court of appeal No. was In granted writ of Circuit, to court which Columbia District of judgment. before certiorari provisions of jurisdictional have concluded that the
We foreign- operations Act do not extend to maritime flag seamen. ships employing alien
I. AFL-CIO, America, National Maritime Union National Labor Relations petition filed a 1959 with the seeking (c) Act, certification under § (c), representative as the of the unlicensed U. S. C. Honduran-flag employed upon seamen certain vessels aA., by Empresa Vapores, owned Hondurena de against was filed corporation. petition Honduran which Company, Jersey corporation Fruit a New United alleged majority Empresa’s to be the owner Empresa hearing stock. intervened and on it was shown Fruit owns all of its stock and elects its direc- United an officer tors, though Empresa no officer or director of or director of all of Hon- United Fruit and are residents proof duras. In turn the was that Fruit is owned United principal its by citizens of the States and maintains United Its shown to be the culti- office at Boston. business was vation, gathering, transporting bananas, sugar, and sale of tropical produce cacao and other raised Central American countries and sold in the States. South United cargo Fruit maintains a fleet of vessels A portion utilizes in this trade. of the fleet consists it Honduran-registered by Empresa operated *4 Fruit, chartered to which were and time United representation included National Maritime Union’s by The crews on these proceeding. vessels are recruited They in Honduras. are Honduran Empresa citizens (save Jamaican) and claim country one that as their operated by Empresa. Ten of the 13 vessels are owned and Three by subsidiary Shipping Co., Inc., are owned Balboa a Panamanian of Empresa agent manage Fruit. acts in the United as an for Balboa ment of the latter vessels. required crew are port. and home
residence wages, terms and their articles, shipping sign Honduran con- etc., are employment, discipline, of condition and Empresa and between agreement bargaining by a trolled de Marineros de Nacional union, Sociedad Honduran a only a Labor Honduran Code Under Honduras. Hon- recognized by personality” “juridic whose union of Honduran at least of composed and which is duras 90% Honduran-registered the seamen on represent can citizens Further, requirement. neither fulfils The M. U. ships. N. bar- as the of Sociedad recognition law Honduran under it exclusively with deal Empresa compels agent gaining agree- The current contract. by the covered all matters on a provides for of Sociedad recognition in addition ment and sets provision, a no-strike-or-lockout shop, with union and cure maintenance allowances, special wage scales, up over- holidays, time, vacation work, hours provisions, employ- details and other prevention, accident time, well. ment as of call ports however, determines Fruit,
United the same integrating sailings, and cargoes their vessels, for the are voyages While organization. fleet into its ports American and South Central between part most regular at each call States, the vessels of the United those taking on purpose for the ports at Honduran intervals renewing the necessary, and, where cargo discharging articles. ship’s
II. facts United from these Board concluded operation maritime integrated single, operated Fruit reasoning that vessels, Empresa were the within Empresa of employer with a joint Fruit its Citing petition. M. U.’s covered N. seamen Co. Steamship opinion, & India Fruit West own maritime concluded (1961), it L. R. B. N.
15 contacts, States substantial United involved operations present. foreign contacts the numerous outweighing in “commerce” engaged Empresa Board held Act3 and that §2(6) of the meaning of within the (7),4 2§ commerce” within “affected operations maritime It (c) (l).5 9§of requirement meeting jurisdictional among seamen to be held an election ordered therefore they to determine whether Empresa’s vessels on signed Hond de Nacional Maritimo U., Sindicato M. wished N. represent them. no union to or uras,6 and Sociedad Empresa indicated, both As we prevent to District in Federal Courts suits brought against York in New proceeding election, Empresa in the Sociedad 91 and 93—and Director —Nos. Regional 3 (6): 152 29 U. C. § transpor- commerce, trade, traffic, means ‘commerce’ “The term States, between among or the several tation, or communication Territory any of the United District of Columbia or country any foreign Territory, or between any other State or Dis- Columbia, within the or Territory, District of State, or the any points the same any Territory, or between or trict of Columbia Territory District or the any through any or other State but State country.” any foreign or of Columbia (7): 29 U. C.S. § burdening commerce, or ‘affecting means commerce’ “The term having led commerce, or free flow obstructing commerce or or obstructing burdening com- or dispute tending to a labor to lead or free flow of commerce.” merce or the (c)(1): 29 U. C.S. §159 shall . the Board filed . . have been petition a shall “Whenever believe to cause it has reasonable petition and if investigate such shall affecting exists commerce representation question of a hearing .” . . . appropriate an provide for imposes the same (a), Act, 29 U. S. C. (a) Section 10 any person from “prevent empowering the Board requirement, affecting commerce.” practice . . . any unfair labor engaging in proceeding. in the union, had intervened Sindicato, Honduran do so. but declined invited intervene Sociedad was *6 Board— of the members the against of Columbia District Dis- of the jurisdiction 93 the 91 and Nos. In No. 107. re- first, grounds: challenged on two was trict (d)9 by § limited proceedings representation of view part to indirect review (d), § 169 S. C. Act, U. an order entered of or review for enforcement petition aof second, that and, (e); 160§C. 29 U. S. (c), 10§ under parties indispensable were members the Board not raised upon (d) challenge based action. against the action in Sociedad’s adjudicated or chal- indispensable-parties 107—and the members —No. in a party is not Sociedad not an issue. of course lenge is order— of the Board impact although the 93, and Nos. 91 That by felt it. in No. challenged 107—is order the same bargaining canceling of Sociedad’s the effect order has is not since Sociedad seamen, Empresa’s agreement with therefore, 107, No. by for the Board. called on the ballot perspective, in better presents question the merits. on adjudication for our the as the vehicle chosen it questions jurisdictional on the passing our This obviates those disposition of 93, since the 91 and raised in Nos. 107. by our decision in No. controlled cases is reexamining the from precluded of course are We action, in Sociedad’s District Court jurisdiction parties. made the challenge was no merely because Having Maurer, (1934). 293 U. S. Mitchell v. had the District Court whether question the examined enjoin the instance of Sociedad at hold that falls within order, we action Board’s in Leedom Kyne, U. exception fashioned limited per- intervention was judicial In that case “in excess of its dele- Board’s order was since the mitted prohibition contrary specific and. gated powers Board has Id., here the at 188. violated Act.” While overriding consid- Act, prohibition specific no power assertion of to determine that the Board’s eration is aboard vessels representation seamen foreign flags vigorous protests under has aroused from foreign governments problems international created Important for our Government. interests of the imme- parties diate are of presence course at stake. But the public questions particularly high in scale of our national interest complexion because their international is a uniquely compelling justification prompt judicial resolution of the controversy power. over the Board’s No question remotely comparable urgency was involved Kyne, which was a purely adversary domestic situation. *7 The exception recognized today is therefore not to be taken an enlargement Kyne. as of the in exception
III. Since all parties agree the that the has con power stitutional to apply the National Labor Relations Act to working the crews foreign-flag at ships, least while they are American waters, Exchange, 7 Cranch 116, 143 (1812); Case, 1, 11 (1887) Wildenhus’s ; U. S. Compania Benz v. Hidalgo, Naviera 138, 353 U. S. go directly (1957), question the whether Congress exercised power. point Our decision on this being dispositive of case, the we do not reach questions the other parties raised the and the amici curiae. question of application of the laws of the United to foreign-flag ships and their crews has arisen often
and in various contexts.7 As to application the of the National Labor Act Relations and its amendments, the has evolved a relying weight test on the relative of a ship’s foreign compared as with its American con tacts. That test led the Board to conclude as here, Co., West India Fruit & Steamship supra, foreign- the flag ships’ activities affected brought “commerce” and generally Comment, See 498, (1960); 69 Yale L. J. 506-511 Flags Boczek, of Convenience balanc the Act. Where coverage of the the them within contrary find in a resulted has contacts ing of the vessel’s apply.8 does not Act that the Board has concluded the ing, question considered ago Court this years Six the Act amendments Taft-Hartley aof picketing “resulting from the damages a suit under foreign seamen entirely by operated foreign ship in an temporarily the vessel while [was] articles Hidalgo, Naviera Compania Benz v. port.” American search apply, that the Act did held at 139. We supra, history and conclud legislative language and ing the boundaries describes “inescapably latter ing that workingmen of our own including only Act as Id., Subsequently, at 144. possessions.” and its country Co., 362 S. S. Cooks Stewards Panama in Marine & the Norris-LaGuardia we held that (1960), S.U. Federal District deprived a §C. Act, 29 S.U. foreign- of a picketing enjoin holding jurisdic limiting the flag specifically ship, it did under the injunction issue tion of the court “to cannot Id., That case at 372. circumstances shown.” however, holding, limiting the earlier Benz regarded be . . . was question picketing no as to “whether since *8 presented either or law” was under state federal tortious noted specifically Indeed, Ibid. or decided. Act “to of the Norris-LaGuardia application from of courts” differs regulate curtail regulate “to Taft-Hartley Act Ibid.; see engaged disputes.” in labor people conduct of (1960). 498, Yale L. J. 523-525 Comment, 69 distinguish- that this case is nonetheless It is contended in here there is a fleet respects. First, able from Benz two in temporarily States waters but Towing Co., g., Dalzell 48, E. L. R. B. No. 50 L. R. R. M. N. operating regular in a course of trade foreign between ports and those of the United States; and, second, foreign owner of the in ships turn an owned Ameri- can corporation. We note that both of these points rely on additional American contacts and therefore necessarily presume the validity of the “balancing of theory contacts” of the Board. But to such a suggested follow procedure might ultimate require that the Board inquire into discipline internal and order of all foreign vessels American, calling at ports. Such activity would raise considerable disturbance not only in the field of maritime law in our but international relations well. In as addi- tion, enforcement of Board would project orders the courts into application of the sanctions of the Act to foreign-flag ships on a purely ad hoc weighing of contacts basis.9 This would inevitably lead to embarrassment in foreign affairs and be entirely infeasible practice. actual question, therefore, appears to us basic; more namely, whether the asAct written was intended to any application to foreign registered vessels employing alien seamen.
Petitioners say that the language of the Act may be read literally as including foreign-flag vessels within its coverage. But, Benz, they have been unable point to any specific language in the Act itself in its or extensive legislative history reflects such a congressional intent. Indeed, the opposite is true as we Benz, found where 9 Our conclusion does not procedure foreclose such a in differeiit contexts, such as the Jones Act, 46 688, U. S. C. pervasive where regulation of the ship may internal order present. of a not be As regards application of the Jones Act to maritime torts on ships, however, the Court has “[p]erhaps stated that the most vener able and universal rule maritime problem law relevant our is that gives importance cardinal flag.” the law of the Lauritzen Larsen, 571, (1953); 345 U. S. see Romero v. International Operating Co., Terminal 354, U. S. (1959); Boczek, 381-384 op. cit., supra, note at 178-180. *9 20 char- Hartley of Chairman language to the pointed
we for American rights both of “a bill asAct the acterizing 144. atS., 353 U. employers.” their for and workingmen original the of sponsors that if believe continue We now conceived amendments of its orAct thoughts such translate failed to they the Board by sought including as the Act boundaries describing the into Therefore, alien crews.10 by manned foreign-flag exert would which a construction basis find no laws to its apply and over the vessels affairs and management internal recognition to the contrary flag, Honduran flying here Department11 State by our only not them long afforded S. C. Act, 29 U. (c)(1) of the Congress enacted § In 1959 discretionary power to the Board granting II) (c)(1), (Supp. §164 effects, with insubstantial disputes with jurisdiction over labor decline proviso that: a any labor jurisdiction over assert shall decline “. . . the the standards jurisdiction under assert would it dispute which over August 1, 1959.” upon prevailing jurisdiction over exerted would argued that the Board It is “standards,” illus- those under crewmen and Empresa’s vessels Steamship Co., 120 & Occidental in Peninsular by action its trated presumed Congress is case (1958), about which B. 1097 R. N. L. presumably was the fact Aside from known. to have unconvincing. argument is Benz, the decision our also of aware amend- history the 1959 legislative language or Nothing in the apply the intent to congressional clearly a indicates Act ments which “standards” crews. ships their foreign-flag and toAct by established amounts dollar the minimum (c) (1) are refers 14§ to which problem purposes, jurisdictional Board for v. Utah Guss created land” “no-man’s is the (c) is addressed B. Ann. N. L. R. See Board, S. 1U. Labor Relations Labor-Management History of the Legislative (1960); II Rep. 18-19 1720; 105 1153-1154, (1959), of 1959 Act Reporting Disclosure 6548-6549, 18134. Cong. Rec. foreign vessel provide a regulations Department State ownership, is documented regardless of “any vessel includes (f). country.” 22 81.1 CFR § under laws *10 but also the In Congress.12 addition, our attention is called to the well-established rule of international law flag governs that the law of the state ordinarily the inter- ship. Case, 12; nal affairs of a supra, See Wildenhus’s at The Colombos, (3d International Law of the Sea rev. ed. 222-223. 1954), possibility The of international discord cannot gainsaid. Especially therefore be is this true on account of the concurrent of the Act and the Honduran Labor Code that would result with our approval of jurisdiction. Sociedad, currently the exclusive bargaining agent of Empresa under Hon- duran would law, a head-on collision with N. M. U. should it become the bargaining agent exclusive under the aggravated Act. This would be by the fact that under Honduran law N. M. is prohibited U. from representing the seamen on Honduran-flag ships even in the absence of a recognized bargaining agent. though even Thus Socie- dad withdrew from such an intramural fight labor —a highly unlikely questions of such interna- circumstance — tional import would remain retaliatory as to invite action from other nations as well as Honduras. presence of such highly charged international brings
circumstances to mind the admonition of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall Charming Betsy, Cranch that “an (1804), congress ought act never to be construed to violate the law of any nations if possible other construction remains . . . .” there- We Benz, fore conclude, as we did in that for us to sanction sovereignty exercise of local under such conditions this “delicate field of international relations there must Treaty X Article of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights between Honduras and the States, (1927), 45 Stat. 2618 provides flying flags having merchant vessels papers country “shall, of either both within the territorial waters of the High Party Contracting high other seas, and on the be deemed to Party flag be the vessels of the whose flown.” intention affirmative present be neither 147. Since S., at 353 U. expressed.” clearly expression, clear such any find able are parties nor the to order was without we hold impair- “any however, imply, This is election. power limitation or sovereignty, own of our ment Larsen, 345 U. Lauritzen field. in this Congress” parties we directed fact, just In 571, 578 *11 facilities “alone has which Congress, in Benz deci- policy important an fairly such make necessary to argu- that here conclude 147, we S., at 353 U. sion,” to us. rather than be directed ments should Larsen, at 593. supra, v. Lauritzen Cf. affirmed is Court therefore District judgment Appeals Court judgment
in No. 107. remanded cases are is and 93 vacated Nos. 91 to the District remand that it with instructions court, of our light complaint for dismissal in No. 107. decision It is so ordered. Goldberg in the considera- part no took Justice Mr. of these cases. decision tion or Douglas, concurring.1 Justice Mr. labor of American activities supposed
I had or to to domestic whether related organizations Labor Relations the National were covered ones a different evinces treaty Act, at least absent States, 102, 118— 288 U. Cook v. Cf. policy.2 Co., Ltd., Steamship 33, Incres opinion applies also No. [This Workers, post, p. Maritime v. International 24.] Treaty Friendship, Com agreed XXII of the that Article It Honduras, Rights the United between merce, and Consular with Liberia Article X of the Convention (1927), and Stat. grant nations exclusive 1751, 1756, those 7, 1938, Stat. October here involved. over the matters my 120. But views rejected were in Benz Compania Naviera Hidalgo, 353 138; U. S. and, having lost that Benz, cause in I bow to its inexorable extension here. The practical effect of our decision is to shift from all the taxpayers to seamen alone the main burden of financing an policy executive of assuring the availability of an ade quate American-owned merchant fleet for federal use during national emergencies. See Note, Panlibhon Reg istration of American-Owned Ships: Merchant Govern ment Policy and the Problem of the Courts, 60 Col. L. Rev. 711.