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

Background

On January 9, 1980, the president of an American longshoremen’s union ordered members not to handle ships or cargoes arriving from or destined for the Soviet Union to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Because the union supplies workers through a hiring hall, a U.S. stevedoring firm could not get employees to unload an American-flag ship carrying Russian wood products for an American importer. The importer says its shipments were stopped, it renegotiated contracts, and it suffered substantial business losses. The importer sued under the federal law that bans certain secondary boycotts and also filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board; lower courts reached differing conclusions about whether the boycott was covered by that law.

Reasoning

The Court focused on the law’s text and prior decisions involving foreign-flag ships. It explained those earlier cases excluded labor conduct that directly targeted foreign vessels and foreign seamen, but this dispute involved American workers, American companies, and an American ship, so it was “in commerce.” The Court held the union’s order—inducing employees to refuse to handle goods to pressure neutral companies—fell within the statute’s ban on secondary boycotts. The Court rejected the idea that a purely political motive shields the union; Congress wrote the prohibition broadly to protect neutral parties. The Court also found the union’s coercive conduct was not protected speech under the First Amendment.

Real world impact

The decision lets injured neutral American companies seek relief for economic losses caused by politically motivated boycotts that force or threaten them with substantial loss. Unions must account for the foreseeable commercial effects of ordered work refusals that target neutral employers nationwide.