National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n

Rule of Law:

A collective bargaining agreement designed to preserve work for union members in the face of technological innovation is a lawful primary agreement under the National Labor Relations Act, even if it preserves work that has been made duplicative or unnecessary, so long as the union's sole objective is work preservation and not the satisfaction of secondary union objectives elsewhere.

Facts:

• The advent of 'containerization' in the shipping industry allowed cargo to be pre-loaded into large metal containers off-pier and then moved as a single unit, drastically reducing the traditional piece-by-piece cargo handling performed by longshoremen of the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) at the pier.
• In response to this job loss, the ILA negotiated the 'Rules on Containers' with marine shipping companies.
• The Rules required that any container originating from or destined for a point within a 50-mile radius of the port must be unloaded ('stripped') or loaded ('stuffed') at the pier by ILA members.
• Prior to containerization, some interstate truckers engaged in 'short-stopping,' a practice of stopping at their own terminals near the pier to unload and reload cargo to meet weight, safety, or delivery requirements.
• Similarly, some 'traditional' warehouses near the pier had always performed loading and unloading of cargo for storage purposes.
• The Rules required ILA longshoremen to perform this container work at the pier even if it would be duplicated by truckers engaged in short-stopping or by employees at traditional warehouses.
• Shipping companies that allowed containers to be handled in violation of the Rules were contractually obligated to pay a $1,000 fine to the ILA per violation.

Procedural Posture:

• Trucking and warehousing companies filed unfair labor practice charges against the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
• The NLRB initially found the Rules unlawful. On review in a prior case (ILA I), the U.S. Supreme Court held the NLRB had applied an erroneous legal standard and remanded the case.
• On remand, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded the Rules were a valid work preservation agreement overall but were unlawful 'as applied' to short-stopping truckers and traditional warehousers.
• The NLRB adopted the ALJ's conclusion, holding the Rules were generally lawful but constituted illegal 'work acquisition' in the specific contexts of short-stopping and traditional warehousing.
• The ILA sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
• The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRB's partial invalidation, holding that the Rules were lawful in their entirety.
• The NLRB petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.