## Facts

- Florida grapefruit exporters sold to Japanese importers, with shipments loaded at Fort Pierce and Port Canaveral by nonunion stevedores Coastal Stevedoring Co. and Port Canaveral Stevedoring Ltd.
- The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) had a labor dispute with Coastal and Canaveral over their use of nonunion labor.
- ILA representatives traveled to Japan and asked Japanese maritime and dockworker unions to help pressure the citrus trade to use union labor in Florida loading operations.
- Japanese unions disseminated communications to industry participants requesting that Japanese importers ensure grapefruit was loaded by union stevedores and warning that Japanese dockworkers would refuse to unload fruit loaded by nonunion labor in the United States.
- Japanese importers warned Florida exporters that cargo loaded by Coastal or Canaveral likely would not be unloaded in Japan.
- At least one vessel was diverted from Coastal’s port to Tampa to use union labor, and Coastal and Canaveral thereafter handled no further Japan-bound grapefruit shipments.
- The NLRB Regional Director petitioned for a temporary injunction under NLRA § 10(l), alleging the ILA engaged in an unlawful secondary boycott under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
- The district court granted a temporary injunction restraining the ILA from threatening, coercing, or restraining neutral entities with an object of forcing them to cease doing business with Coastal and Canaveral.

## Issues

1. Whether the NLRA permits NLRB jurisdiction over a domestic union’s conduct that uses foreign unions and foreign importers when the purpose and effect are to create a secondary boycott in the United States.
2. Whether, for § 10(l) relief, there was reasonable cause to believe the ILA violated § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) and whether injunctive relief was just and proper.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a § 10(l) temporary injunction.
- The court held the NLRB had jurisdiction because the ILA’s conduct was intended to produce, and did produce, a secondary boycott in the United States.
- The court concluded the Regional Director presented a substantial legal and factual basis (reasonable cause) to believe the ILA’s conduct constituted unlawful secondary pressure under § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B).
- The court found no abuse of discretion in granting interim relief pending full NLRB adjudication.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) prohibits a labor organization from threatening, coercing, or restraining any person engaged in commerce where an object is to force that person to cease doing business with another (secondary boycott conduct).
- Under NLRA § 10(l), a district court may issue temporary injunctive relief upon a showing of reasonable cause to believe a covered unfair labor practice occurred and that relief is just and proper; the court does not decide the ultimate merits.
- The NLRA may apply to a domestic union’s orchestration of foreign conduct when the object and substantial effects are domestic, including the disruption of business relationships in U.S. commerce.
- Pressure directed at neutral parties (such as importers and exporters) to sever ties with the primary employer may constitute secondary coercion within § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B), even if communicated through intermediaries.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld interim injunctive relief against the ILA because the NLRB had reasonable cause to believe the union’s coordination with Japanese unions coerced neutral market participants to stop using nonunion stevedores, creating a prohibited secondary boycott with intended and actual effects in U.S. commerce.


Dowd v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 975 F.2d 779 (11th Cir. 1992)