Southern S. S. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

quite sufficient the evidence trial verdict. jury’s sustain dismissal conditioning its action court’s trial newa motion the defendant’s reduction plaintiff’s accepting upon the taken presumably verdict jury’s in the as to any evidence lack of because of a ma- worth, matter financial defendant’s —a damages in punitive award terial to However, jiropriety sum. substantial regard is action the court’s voluntarily ac- us, plaintiff before verdict. reduced ceded Court is District judgment of

affirmed. NATIONAL

SOUTHERN S. CO. S. BOARD. RELATIONS LABOR

No. Appeals, Third. Circuit.

Circuit Court

6,May der of directing Board National Labor Relations company and desist to cease practices which from certain unfair labor bargain engaged, found it had Board collectively with the Maritime Natio.nal repre- Union America as exclusive employees, specified sentative of its of a unit five pay offer back reinstatement with and, employees discriminatorily discharged,

upon striking application to reinstate certain employees. upon petition Following hearing certify representatives bargaining collective 16, 1937, July the Board on tion to directed elec- an company’s held a unit of the employees consisting per- of the unlicensed deck, employed engine sonnel departments operated stewards’ out of on vessels ports, except and Gulf wire- Atlantic operators, less chief electricians radio junior electrically ships, and en- on gineers driven who hold licenses. election company’s was held on the seven vessels October, 1937, majority in and disclosed a favor of National Maritime Union of January America. On the Board bargain- certified the ing as exclusive Union representative employees unit mentioned. Shortly 26, 1938, January after va- and at CLARK, dissenting. Judge, Circuit rious times thereafter officers of Union sought to arrange bargaining collective con- company, company. The ferences with however, bargain times refused to all at admits, although This it them. that denies any was made the Union to effort open negotiations prior August however, Board, found substan- efforts tial evidence that such were made early January beginning the end of February, Joseph Randolph W. Henderson W. engage its refusal to col- defense of Philadelphia, Childs, (Adams, both Pa. bargaining with the Union com- lective Childs, McKaig & Lukens and Rawle & pany designation contends that Henderson, Pa., Philadelphia, all on the Union was invalid because election was brief), petitioner. complaint improperly Its conducted. Emerson, Washington, I. Thomas D. election that the Board at the held on the Fahy, Counsel, (Charles C. Gen. Robert B. refused, first of in the its vessels absence Watts, Counsel, Associate Gen. Laurence organizations of consent the labor in- Counsel, Knapp, A. Asst. Gen. and Samuel volved, company’s representa- permit Libbin, Edes and Louis National Labor Re- identify present tives to be voters Washington, G, lations all D. on properly to see that the election was con- respondent. brief), ducted. At the elections held the six oth- BIGGS, given er vessels such consent was MARIS, CLARK, Before present. company’s representatives were GOODRICH, JONES, Judges. Circuit proceeding A certification is of MARIS, Judge, Circuit nonadversary, fact-finding character petition plays part This is a Southern Steam- which Board a disin ship Company investigator seeking review merely terested to as- set aside an or- Houston, employees begun as to dock certain the desires Tracey, 9(c) oiler, when to turn the Section failed representation. Act, purpose 29 U.S.C.A. steam “on deck” of load- for the National Labor Pool, ing cargo. en- wide discretion the first assistant 159(c), confers § Board as to gineer, inves- discovered the of steam and in which failure the manner may by Tracey ship’s take was told unli- The Board that the made. tigation shall be any personnel utilize employees or censed was on strike Union a secret ballot course, may, recognition boarding and It method. issuance other suitable passes. put employer Pool then said that lie would of the upon representatives call Tracey appearing himself, employees the steam on deck identifying in assist it replied take in it that that he would “have hand case the other to vote. On instance, firemen to take the out the fire room.” evidently did in this view, on, Tracey representa- When Pool turned tile steam presence that since Braun, duty, to, operate called the fireman on might tives, consented unless Union, strike, join and member of the employees coerce degree to some Ferguson, At which he did. free this time their expressing from ¡¡revent them fireman, appeared to Braun identifying relieve whose vot- means choice, some other Ferguson, watch ended. who had But was confers employed. The act should be ers member, rep- also Union tend refused to employer have its right upon the promptly he and left fires and Braun that is obvious present resentatives ¡heir join eleven other strikers who were presence fair elec- essential to a is not poop deck, general seated on the meet- pres- tion. it is not Indeed contended duty. ing place of the seamen when off The any person voted who ent that was instance engineer immediately second assistant took so, or the election do not entitled to ship’s over the care of the fires and the unfairly. of the The was action conducted officers, with the assistance the six repre- company’s excluding Board join unlicensed seamen did accordingly within its discre- sentatives was strike, proceeded necessary then with the Corpora- tionary power. Marlin-Rockwell operations loading cargo. for the tion Cir., 116 F.2d 586. about 10:30 ship’s At o’clock A. M. the master, Captain Rudan, came on board. was company follows that informed He once at the strikers that their guilty practice unfair labor in refus ship’s conduct was violation of the arti- ing bargain with the Union chosen as the they signed, which had cles and ordered representative employees of its that the individually collectively, them to “turn rightly comp.any Board ordered the to cease to”, they do, each and all refused to practice and desist from this labor unfair Warren, spokesman, telling him that and, collectively upon request, bargain striking they recognition were for Union repre with the Union as the exclusive boarding passes. Captain Rudan then employees its sentative of included in the brought deputy aboard United States already bargaining unit described. Shipping Commissioner who informed the On one July company’s according they strikers that to their articles vessels, City Worth, of Fort at was dock agreed “to be had obedient to the lawful Houston, Texas, voy- at in the course of a commands the master” and warned them age Philadelphia from to Houston and re- “subject they were being logged day turn. On that thirteen unlicensed sea- days for one” obeying two for not orders. men the vessel met at the union hall in men, however, refused to abandon the Houston find out what had been ac- Throughout clay they strike. remained complished by way obtaining bargain- poop orderly deck seated on in ail man- ing with company conference they At ner. no time were ordered to passes delegates Union enabling to board vessel; contrary they leave the port. ships Upon its when in being in- regular course, served their mid- company’s formed of the refusal to meet day number, meal of their own one bargain with the Union the men unan- Smith, boy. mess imously go on voted to strike the following day compel- company in order to afternoon, Late in the same recognize Union issue boarding attorney, company’s telephon local after delegates. passes its superintendent ing Philadelphia, ad attorney At 8 M. on day, July o’clock A. the next the Union’s if vised 18th, vessel off while the was moored called he would to the strike were recommend men company boarding passes issue breached shipping articles participating delegates, the Union’s action con- in it. shore cededly recognition. tantamount to Union statute, 46 U.S.C.A. §§ Relying upon promise Union’s 574, requires shipping sign that seamen attorney advised the men to terminate' the articles at beginning voyage each M. strike which at 7 o’clock P. did sign and The off the articles at its conclusion. Finding and resumed their stations. statute, however, protec was for the undisputed upon virtually foregoing facts tion of seamen and intended “to evidence, properly concluded the Board parties forbid mutually under company’s that the strike was caused taking to assure a crew the to con recog- practice refusing unfair labor employees tinue re-sign and to if it de bargain the Union. nize and after signing voyage’s sires articles at a off having The strikers resumed their duties end.” National Labor Relations Board v. approval Captain with Steamship Corp., 206, and consent of the Waterman 309 U.S. officers, ship 493, 497, Rudan and the other the sailed 60 S.Ct. In 84 L.Ed. 704. night. During present on schedule the the the case Board found that the s.ame voyage Philadelphia they per- return employment company’s the tenure of the satisfactorily. formed their duties Never- seamen not mere was terminated the Rudan, Captain consulting expiration after theless shipping articles. This find ship’s officers, reship the ing fully supported by decided not to five the evidence that strikers, Warren, Tracey, Ferguson, of the ordinarily new articles signed are as the Accordingly Pfuhl and Smith. when the old signed any articles are and that off Philadelphia July vessel docked at on 25th case the seamen consider en themselves signed shipping gaged and the crew off arti- voyage the for the new unless notified cles, contrary. these five men were informed that the In to quite this connection it is. reshipped. would they During significant captain not be the of the that the and other voyage ship’s testimony return Union members the in their referred officers any having crew had decided to strike if five men “discharged” one of been discharged previously their number were to be or “fired.” All five had been Philadelphia. Accordingly employed periods varying arrival at when from six eighteen members other Union of the crew weeks to months. We find no er discharge they learned of the five fel- ror in Board’s conclusion their re members, them, Crassavaz, employees expiration seven of mained low after the Reeves, Latham, Burns, Hughes, Neeley voyage they discharged the by and that were Holt, ship protest. .company. left the One of them, Crassavaz, subsequently reshipped. company’s Nor is there merit in the The Board found contention the men discharged five seamen were discharged were reasons because of their unconnected active with the strike at participation 18th, July July ample in the on strike of that Houston 18th. There is evi support their dence discharge finding constituted violation of the Board’s in this act, respect. company’s and that Indeed it was their officers because of frankly gave principal discharge as a reason for the unlawful the seven other discharges the refusal of men obev July seamen went out on strike on 25th. strike, ship’s during officers anu accordingly The Board ordered com- urged sug the other reasons now were not pany to offer pay with back reinstatement prior gested hearing before the to the five seamen who discharged were company day Board. When the on the fol and, upon application, offer reinstate- lowing discharges, wrote to the United ment the seamen who went out on strike Inspector Philadelphia advising States at July company 25th. The strongly urges dismissals, him of the it limited its reason that the order should be set because aside during the to the fact that strike at Hous the five seamen were discharged' since obey anyone ton the men “refused to con employment their relation automatically ship’s Company’s nected with the of they ended when signed off shipping ficials.” July 25th, because, articles on they if discharged, discharge accordingly was war- We come to the con for reasons ranted not connected with principal the sideration of the contentions of strike, any case their discharge company, namely, right was the that it had the justified they participated since had discharge in an to seamen because the strike unlawful “sitdown” they participated strike and had as sea- had was an uw however, present case, during they had violated one lawful and because period was their whole strike and breached sea the law of the safely it. the dock participating in moored to harbor shipping articles Houston, port. company strike of The strikers that the domestic contended guilty no strike and were unlawful conduct. While “sit-down” was an unlawful services, therefore withheld sufficient steam was discharge the strikers operation all of in Na- was maintained for down rule laid justified under the ship’s sanitary safety appliances. v. Fansteel Labor Relations Board tional engineer hearing chief at S.Ct. The admitted Corp., 306 Metallurgical U.S. danger any not in at time. that the 599. With L.Ed. A.L.R. question under circum- agree. The The whether we cannot this contention with- American seamen stances or other guilty of no violence strikers were mutiny guilty becoming or out of a revolt or They did take unlawful conduct. adjudication.1 captain has received recent ship, as the possession hold authority modern the Such there both admitted engineer chief negative. strike is their serv- hearing. They merely withheld strike, find we that Section 2 So hours of the during ices the eleven exempt em- Act way does any interfering without provisions, ployers mem- of seamen from non-striking of the officers work expressly exempt deck, carriers poop whereas does Sitting on the of bers the crew. Act, 29 subject to Labor U.S. Railway crew members of the place the usual for in decisions C.A. 152. Also two recent duty, them did not make § meet when off to Appeals home the Circuit ship their Court was trespassers, for the v. American- (Weisthoff leave Second Circuit they time ordered to were at no Co., 124, and Black Hawaiian S. 79 F.2d not S. was that strike it. We conclude Corp. Diamond S. deprive the S. v. unlawfully to so conducted as 875) 94 F.2d protection of act participants of the inferred. to seamen Fansteel case. under the doctrine members of a In the case Weisthoff agreement their Did the breach "of ship’s wages crew were allowed to recover obey com in shipping to articles they left although had the steam- earned striking deprive the of the master mands voyage. ship of the before the termination the act and protection seamen of They shipped Francisco for had at San discharge? subsequent We justify their ports re- trip a to Gulf and Atlantic did In agree not. Board that in New York harbor the crew turn. When holding our consideration so we confine master, upon the refused to made demands the strikers had the facts of If this case. until satisfied and work demands were their guilty of acts of violence been criminal ship police refused leave the until or forcible the vessel detainer of They left. The court called aboard. then would doubt doctrine the Fansteel case demands were found certain their justified discharge by less have their making justified that the of the other company. obey If the di their refusal did amount revolt or demands a place rections their officers had taken In the Diamond S. desertion. Black S. their at while was at sea anchor Corporation case court affirmed the subject in perils an unsafe directing order the reinstatement Board’s so sea that obedience was essential to who on strike while of seamen went out safety of the vessel might their action port. vessel was well have legitimate transcended dispute bounds action a labor in Rees the other hand v. United On have States, supra 792], constituted mutiny. a revolt or seamen F.2d Rees [95 States, Cir., v. United 4 vessel, while participated 95 F.2d in a strike 784. 1 Story, circuit, sitting Justice harbor and the crew ruled Boston demanded day on a number of occasions re should have a watch below put during voy fusal to sea amounted in the forenoon whole endeavoring age) ; Cassedy, 1837, to make a United United States revolt. v. Hamilton, Red.Cas.No.14,745 (the States v. vessel Fed.Cas.No. was St. (the 15,291 objected vessel was in harbor Helena the crew Salem sub objected captain and the crew substituted of the mate stitution master). master); Gardner, United States v. Fed.Cas.No.15,188 (the was vessel ly general a law harbor of the maritime Algic, in the rule from seamen the S. S. was implicit Montevideo, guilty which obe- found Uruguay, were exacts dience master. in viola- to the commands of the revolt endeavoring make Code, power 18 The conferred Criminal absolute thus 292 of the tion of Sec. pro- necessary master for the con- the is there at sea defendants U.S.C.A. § property entrusted is tection of the lives and vessel which “the crew of a tended that safely in his his is in safe care. When vessel to port largely moored to a dock or at anchor high power is necessity but the for such right to strike” harbor have the Blake, 1 gone. W. Rob. question not be- was said that that court Smith, 500; Reprint Buddington “Algic Eng. v. because the fore it for decision 407; 33 Am.Dec. The South anchor Conn. moored to the dock or at fact Portland, D.C., harbo-r, position in such F. but was in safe that the orders of the crew to the obedience Blake, High supra, English In The safety. to her of the master was essential Admiralty the refusal Court held case, applicable rule is the same crew, while the ves- of the members sea, though as this vessel were at docked, put to sea was sel was States, United decided in Hamilton court mutiny. Lushington, speaking for Dr. 15.” & Occi- Cir. 268 F. In Peninsular : Eng. Reprint) (page 506 of court said National Labor Rela- dental S. tions Co. v. S. observed, that the oc- “It to be also Board, Cir., 411, seamen 98 F.2d port, where the place in currence took They engaged in strike. took a sit-down hazard; I draw exposed ship was to no possession ship, refused to let the of the between dis- strong line of distinction equipment light furnishing electrical or the any in- port, and of orders obedience pumps sanitary supplying arrangements vessel when the whatever subordination used, refused to to be expose seas, might high where it on the permit any anyone food be served cargo, and the lives ship, to destruction ship prevented but themselves. The was board.” of -allon sailing passengers and the had to be Portland, supra, was it In South The expense sent ashore and housed at of the District for by Court the held the District company. discharge The of the strik- the a for was unlawful Washington that it of voyage at the end the was held not ers to of imprisonment of a to cause master practice. unfair be labor jail, be foreign crew in a member of his is, therefore, upon It authority refusal, clear that was the vessel when cause of his in question right must voyage. of the seamen of to port, proceed on a to under think, strike the circumstances vessel concluded, of the case when a we be port the open Upon us is still an in a domestic safely before one. rea- moored is the denial son, however, require not we law think maritime does that there is no- is which right strike depriving sound basis for of the to seamen to seamen of this when, fellows right here, freely their as their accorded vessel is now labor on the moored that students in We note port. to the dock a safe land. domestic Wheth- the same conc er reached right foreign port subject exists in have a we of need now not decide. There is undoubted- lusion.2 interruption Legal Implications Rothschild —The their effectiveness of by production. a Strike Tale L.J. of Seamen —45 “Through impris- penalties imposed by abolishing “None of the statute desertion, penalty which law seamen as a for mutinous conduct onment mutiny discipline subsequent dr to infractions of intended enacted was leaving ship apply peaceful port statute, a be to a cannot strike in a seamen of safety. subjected imprisonment in The order to com- law was intended to confirm Surely supreme authority pel at work. the master’s on them to remain high single-hand master, seamen, seas in the course of when the mere fact ed, orders, strike, instead of leav- must enforce his remain board disobedience a may safety port ing ship moored' in of to which lead overthrow a a his imperil safety passengers ship, make the difference be- in itself of cannot cargo. dangers guilt of No threat innocence of the crime are tween mutiny. ened while is moored to discussing port safety. most, of dock a At “Most cases shipowner by antiquated pecuniary rights suffers are eco- loss of seamen through delayed sailing developments. implicit of the ves But nomic cases, a time sel —a loss which incident in these lawful eVen decided organize strikes, depend right uniformly all denied was when containing point One noticed. articles, further must be shipping while company Board to reim lawful The ordered to the be obedient covenant “to ** * public agencies relief for sums burse work the master commands of paid everything relat- to the reinstated officers, five seamen ordered superior their beyond power. Re an ex- them. vessel,” contain This was not ing to the did public Labor Corp. National Re The cove- Steel plicit not strike. agreement U.S. 61 S.Ct. direction lations nant be obedient will ac- every -. The Board’s order normal L.Ed. superiors implicit one’s eliminating merely cordingly be modified this employment contract. articles provision. obligation. The explicit implicit made obligation the exercise breach of that Labor Rela- The order the National ground for right strike was as hereinabove in- Board is modified tions employment. the contract terminating dicated, affirmed. A so modified is Re- 2(3) Section enforcing as modified will be decree Act, (3), makes lations U.S.C.A. § entered. shipping quite Consequently clear. right bar the seamen’s articles did CLARK, Judge (dissenting). Circuit safely their was moored strike vessel while my judgment the National and the breach of humble in an American guilty has justi- did here been strike Labor Relations Board involved articles subsequent discharge disservice to wise industrial re- fy of the strikers. of a second say I second because the United the Board was not in error lations. Tt follows that already Supreme Court has ex- directing the reinstatement the five States disagreement their pressed its earlier seamen others who discharged July approval 25th of the so-called “sit-down strike”.1 on strike on because of went out cannot, therefore, join discriminatory discharge my I fel- learned breth- file I assenting what deem to he an- seamen. ren low acknowledges, of workers “The law by any now and a strike class and even quitting illegal, favors essential when adjustment imprisoned, could satisfactory industrial griev- within a vessel was conflicts the framework dem- unseaworthiness justifiably might society. Special ocratic circumstances ance of which crew danger privilege required, if seamen that complain deny occasion which, refuge. might at sea remedy. port when in a properly combine to or of But owner of can be policy, is not the there no reason crew, the of and “For passengers, support in or even its no the of maritime a vessel doctrines the sea- for a law, concerned with denial to seamen in primarily is when right recognized safety a which is the of of a freely of vessel and worthiness there whether has other of workers.” to know classes position best regulations Sapiro de- with the compliance Mutiny and at the been Dock, Frank — signed sea. But 25 Oal.L.Rev. “The decisions of promote safety to 41, by-gone day members of the a would hold a individual that refusal by since action is obey action to lawful commands the is collective ineffectual, crew while right seamen the of docked is an endeavor make To is to or necessary. deny making recognition destroy of a revolt. But collective action is to of to take safeguard right supplement even the labor union and the labor to of necessary to bargain vigilant collectively and administrative enforce- to dramatize its most demands means is ment the law. of of now integral than safety at more an requires part sea of social-industrial “But regulations. It and of law that the im- safety enforcement of world reflects changes effi- also made in that world. depends personnel portant by docent doctrines of Story but “The must by ‘discipline’ cient Justice changed working aro to make room ex- conditions. conditions Such be through understanding bar- of effectively most secured tlio and social pansions rights. gaining themselves When the ship, safely seamen crew power tlio through legislative admin- dock, or to a strikes refuses than moored and to rather gain legiti- self-evident effort work, action. should be to istrative certain right organize ends, seamen to themselves mate for others longer thereby action class, is is no to strike where -only com- is essential to enforce mutinous but is lawful imperilled incident right regulations and to exercise statutory of collective pliance with bargaining.” working with- conditions, secure decent Metallurgical safety R. at sea. L. B. there can 1 N. v. Fansteel out which be 512 plainly That does not cannot mean declared case other mistake. Fansteel The right Brandéis Re is absolute.7 Mr. Labor a limitation on the National Justice years saying: pointed ago that out some theory limitation Act.

lations The right carry called the “The on business —be is often has As been much discussed. interpretation, liberty inter- property value. To statutory case matters —has just cause unanimity right as to fere with without either there has been however, clear, injury was is unlawful. The fact that scope.2 It is its its basis or justifi- have been inflicted sometimes a strike is federal courts the inferior illegal because reinstatement cation. But a strike from except directed types orderly the manner purpose, however requirements act certain * * * Nei- Republic in which it conducted. In misbehaving employees. is law, attempt the Fourteenth ther common nor had occasion case this court Amendment, right types.3 The the absolute confers of those classification some Wisconsin, Compare Aikens 195 success strike. v. attempt insofar successful 194, 205, 3, 204, 49 L.Ed. 154.” 25 S.Ct. certiorari.4 U.S. in denial of implied Kansas, 306, 311, 47 Dorchy 272 U.S. required we are In case at bar 86, 87, L.Ed. 248. 71 S.Ct. special in a pass upon employee conduct require .any purpose here does not the sea Our That environment environment. exceptions. in- go catalogue of Courts those who conduct is that of and the always in judges are not accord.8 dividual ships. oí down thereto in The behavior adjustment of con- They search for an ordered reinstated Board parties both flicting interests of cessation consisted of a collective their back- conflict in relation to economic ship moored to dock a for- work on a community. By of a ground members eign5 port. On such a cessation from land token, right same test one within to strike. is not of con- work comes weapon happily venience. accepted The de- right has been the strike That many years.6 pends employer part jurisprudence for of our inconvenience Organized Corp., Labor 59 S.Ct. 83 L. Industrial Con- 306 U.S. flicts, Right 312 § The 123 A.L.R. Strike —In Ed. Gen- Right Legal Storey, ; Strike, eral of Sit-down Labor Status 32 Yale Law— Legal Equitable Remedies, 99; Right Mason, Law Journal Strike — (com- Strike, Pennsylvania Michigan University Law Review 35 ment) ; 52; Right Law Review Labor The Fansteel Decision: Protec- Union — Wag- Striking Interference, Strike—Unlawful Workers Boston tion Under University (comment); Act, Review 187 Law Review 33 Illinois Law ner Nelles, Case, (comment); Law—National The First Labor American Labor Employees’ 41 Yale Law Journal 165. Relations Board—Effect of Reinstatement, Right ?, might What Misconduct on one reflect. very discussing precious right, Law Review 38 Columbia Pritchard, expression, quoted (note); The Fan- Hart that of free I Mr. Lippman: are, Employee and I Misconduct “There far as steel Case: so can liberty; Remedial Powers of the discover no absolutists of can I liberty Harvard Relations 52 Law recall doctrine of Labor which under 1275; contingent La- test Labor the acid does not Review Law—National become ** * Employee upon some Misconduct other bor Relations ideal. For Act— every Barring Relief, Michigan liberty Law Re- theorist of has 37 what meant as view, Employee types (comment); Mis- that certain 1253 is of behaviour and opinion Wagner regulated Under the Act: Devel- of better classes should conduct differently Case, regulated opments 39 the Fansteel somewhat Since Co- be (note); Monthly 616, quot 124 Law Review cf. future.” Atlantic lumbia 1369 Weisiger, Organi Sit-down Reinstatement ed Committee Industrial Hague, D.C., F.Supp. Strikers, 23 Minnesota Law Review 30. zation v. 25 Corp. 3 B., Republic R.L. Steel N. 131. 8 Oakes, Organized Cir., and 107 F.2d 472. Labor Indus Corp. Conflicts, Striking Republic B., R. v. N. L. trial 313 Where In § Steel Contract, 60 S.Ct. 84 L.Ed. volves Breach 314 Other § 309 U.S. Right Strike; Lowry, Limitations on to Law, and As contrasted home—the Strikes 21 Columbia Law Sayre, 783; being Houston, Texas. Review Labor Courts, 682; 6 Wright, Conspiracies Eskin, 39 Yale Law Journal Criminal Legality Agreements, 12, p. 35; Martin, The of “Peaceful Coercion” in § The Disputes, Unions, University Law of Labor of Penn § Modern 30 Gen Strike; Oakes, Bight sylvania of Workmen to Law Review 456. eral thereof, par- great third another to^innocent counselor of the sometimes even downtrodden, in that efficacy.9 sanction Governor Lehman of New Its ties lor its York, any war- penalties stated that “no one with common aspect one of the interpret would relations. So sense a denial conception of this Act as labor fare strategy right in terms to strike”. As matter of fact timing can he selected produc- always thought philos- had effective was the in terms of that rather than ophy of the labor movement Cer- itself. tion. tainly engines one remembers the return of recog- of time been limitation has One manning to roundhouse careful and the by statute.10 by nized both the cases pumps in the mines. war, another time of time is the That philosophy adjudged part than strife over Should that rather be war between nations proportionate share of the National Labor just is a Act what dangerous for disregard excepted so those production. It is it be from profits of defense benefits? I think engaged in its own act’s it should. And country not, impose my belief, right require to so decide does workers accord to my too “too late and me to differ with brethren the fatal as to the its need avoid community present mutiny. dangerous for a incidence of it is the crime of little”. So beyond goes Undoubtedly Captain in- timing Bligh their view that to accede philos- long been peril. This has dead time finds ac into current convenience ceptance. by great pleased they Massachusetts I expressed am note cite ophy oppressed, legal periodicals some lawyer which are and defender article, pabulum. Storey, favorite Let me add in his well-known writer’s Moorfield Strike, Mr. I above cited. four more to their two.12 do not think Right The “ * * * mutiny says: holding Therefore vel non. Such a Storey test heavily felony-misdemean- his work leans on the right the individual leave too cases.13 subject paramount of or distinction of the land must be running engineer public. The who is only is true It inconvenience great centre another a train one danger may particular result from a stop his more in the middle of can no foreign port. cessation at the dock in a journey place his in some desolate and tell general To bottom whitewash go passengers he on unless will overlooks, my opinion, very fact es- pay money than him a considerable sum of essence, sence of maritime traffic. Such mutiny a sailor can obtain aboard air, here, “happy landing”, as in the is the expense advantage some to himself at voy- return of vessel from safe its voyage. principle The admits no age. during It the course of through people legis- distinction. The journey positions is in its where its can and should insist that labor dis- latures security by is unaffected idleness judicial putes shall be decided tribunals qualms are crew. Some detectable war, and that we civil shall majority’s ruling.14 narrowness danger subject not all live to the of such difficulty seems me more funda- bring war whenever labor leaders choose to mental. The Board and this court entrust Storey, Right Strike, it on.” security per- the estimation of that (Italics mine.) Law Yale likely Journal Shipwrecked sons most to be biased. philosophy passengers is the also of the Wicks will take little satisfaction in the 11forbidding pub equivalent Hill the abandonment of sailors’ the common and conveyances, passed recently by lic tragic, know was “didn’t loaded”. La- Legislature. Upon approval New York his bor have been unions solicitous — — 9 Greene, (note); Mutiny and The Labor Frankfurter Seamen Sit-down Chapter Oregon 128, Injunction, I, Strikes, The Allowable 18 Law 134 Review Lawyers (note); S.S.Algic, Area of Economic 1 Conflict. 10Right Time, 148; Quarterly 144, to Strike 32 Law— War Guild (note); Right Strike, In Law 837 Harvard junction: Review of Seamen 87 Columbia Enjoined (note). Viola 1294 Coal Strike Law Review 13 Act, Employee tion of the Level' Cornell Law Misconduct 5 Under ; Chafee, Wagner Developments Quarterly (note) 184 Act: Since cf. Law, 1913-1920, Case, Progress 34 Har 39 Columbia Review Fansteel Law seq. (note). Law Review 400 et vard same, instance, (N.Y.) 1939, P.L. c. 927. Would be the for Shipboard, on if of two hawsers used? Sit-down Strike one instead 302, 305, Quarterly Law Cornell su advocacy Maritime full crew laws. main- argue unions for extension beyond the tenance care of and break voyage. it not inconsistent Is voyage during the passengers care to suggest ? and no crews all One argument in puts authors above cited this says: slightly He “To different fashion. pier at its advocate strikes on board a that, merely in such circum- the basis on stances, safety cargo lives and is not endangered, short-sighted point take is to doubt, a vessel is in of view. No while security port, the of all con- immediate greatly jeopardized is not cerned crew’s refusal duty. But it is not do safety present alone immediate security which be There must considered. pro- safety must be is tected. ultimate discipline For be this there must times, ship be at sea or at all whether the safest of harbors. tied master shore .A port control his crew in cannot likely to be able control at sea.

is To allow the seamen to resist lawful com- place encourage in one mands but resistance elsewhere.” Sit-down similar Shipboard, 23 Cornell Law Strikes Quarterly (note). stop just large To work on land after a is received or refuse to sail order Rousset, La., O. Orleans, Felix of New away her ship which is home Philip Gorman, Fla., C. Leesburg, undoubtedly gives economic additional petitioner. leverage. Inconvenience to consumers is Cary, L. Key, William Mi- Sewall thing, danger passengers quite one another. Cardozo, IV., Sp. Atty. chael H. Assts. to If the National Labor Relations Gen., Clark, Atty. Jr., Samuel O. Asst. used, Supreme Act Court Gen., Wenchel, Counsel, P. Chief J. held, employee misbehavior, to deter has the writer of Revenue, Ralph Bureau Internal think dissent can Staubly, Sp. Atty., F. Internal Bureau of example or more useful occasion. better Revenue, both C., of Washington, D. respondent. FOSTER, HUTCHESON, Before

HOLMES, Judges. Circuit HOLMES, Judge. Circuit George W. Webster died testate in in 1937. He left four insurance in which he Florida policies designated, OF IN WEBSTER v. CO MMISSI ONER as bene- executors, ficiary, administrators, TERNAL REVENUE. his assigns. His will made no mention No. 9799. policies, gave, devised, bequeathed but Appeals, Court Fifth Circuit Circuit. estate, rest or residue all the of his every nature and kind whatsoever and June located, Webster, wherever to Helen Ruth heirs, assigns. question pre- her appeal sented the pro- whether policies ceeds of should be included in gross subjected estate the decedent’s payment of an estate tax.

Case Details

Case Name: Southern S. S. Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: May 6, 1941

Citation: 120 F.2d 505

Docket Number: 7435

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.