WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 today dockworkers have no right to protest the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by boycotting ships bound for Russia.
The justices declared the International Longshoremen's Association engaged in an 'illegal secondary boycott' because it encouraged members to violate labor contracts by refusing to load Soviet-bound ships.
'As understandable and even commendable as the ILA's ultimate objectives may be, the certain effect of its action is to impose a heavy burden on neutral employers,' Justice Lewis Powell wrote for the court.
Powell indicated the justices were reluctant to 'create a large and undefinable exception to the statute if we accepted the argument that political boycotts are exempt from the secondary boycott provision.'
In other action, the high court in two separate Medicare cases unanimously refused to give medical suppliers and Medicare recipients greater latitude in contesting amounts they are reimbursed for certain services.
The justices ruled medical suppliers cannot sue the federal government to challenge the amount it pays for certain medical services.
In a separate opinion, the court upheld the hearing procedures established by Congress to resolve Medicare claims. A group of recipients had sought an additional hearing to challenge benefits denied under Medicare, the federal health care insurance program for the aged and elderly.
In the dockworkers case, the Afghanistan crisis prompted the ILA to adopt a resolution telling members not to handle any cargo bound to or coming from the Soviet Union. The action was taken in support of President Carter's January 1980 announcement of trade sanctions against the Soviets.
At the time, ILA President Thomas Gleason said his union would refuse to continue 'business-as-usual as long as the Russians insist on being international bully-boys.'
Shipping companies filed suits against the union that ultimately reached the Supreme Court. The shippers told the justices the ILA has 'demonstrated a long history of whimsical political activity.'
Only union actions that bear 'some relation to efforts to improve the lot of employees' are protected by federal law and previous Supreme Court decisions, the shippers asserted.
In response, the ILA told the justices the dockworkers launched the boycott because they believed the Soviet military moves in Afghanistan was an 'action of international barbarism.'
Today's ruling involved Allied International Inc., a U.S. company that imports Russian wood products for sale in the United States. As a result of the participation in the boycott by Boston dockworkers, Allied's shipments were completely disrupted.
The firm eventually was forced to renegotiate its Soviet contracts, substantially reducing purchases and jeopardizing its ability to supply customers.
It sued the ILA in Boston federal court, but a federal district judge dismissed the case. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, however, reversed and ruled in favor of the company. The high court today upheld that decision.
In other action, the high court in two separate Medicare cases unanimously refused to give medical suppliers and Medicare recipients greater latitude in contesting amounts they are reimbursed for certain services.
The justices ruled medical suppliers cannot sue the federal government to challenge the amount it pays for certain medical services.
In a separate opinion, the court upheld the hearing procedures established by Congress to resolve Medicare claims. A group of recipients had sought an additional hearing to challenge benefits denied under Medicare, the federal health care insurance program for the aged and elderly.
In the dockworkers case, the Afghanistan crisis prompted the ILA to adopt a resolution telling members not to handle any cargo bound to or coming from the Soviet Union. The action was taken in support of President Carter's January 1980 announcement of trade sanctions against the Soviets.
At the time, ILA President Thomas Gleason said his union would refuse to continue 'business-as-usual as long as the Russians insist on being international bully-boys.'
Shipping companies filed suits against the union that ultimately reached the Supreme Court. The shippers told the justices the ILA has 'demonstrated a long history of whimsical political activity.'
Only union actions that bear 'some relation to efforts to improve the lot of employees' are protected by federal law and previous Supreme Court decisions, the shippers asserted.
In response, the ILA told the justices the dockworkers launched the boycott because they believed the Soviet military moves in Afghanistan was an 'action of international barbarism.'
Today's ruling involved Allied International Inc., a U.S. company that imports Russian wood products for sale in the United States. As a result of the participation in the boycott by Boston dockworkers, Allied's shipments were completely disrupted.
The firm eventually was forced to renegotiate its Soviet contracts, substantially reducing purchases and jeopardizing its ability to supply customers.
It sued the ILA in Boston federal court, but a federal district judge dismissed the case. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, however, reversed and ruled in favor of the company. The high court today upheld that decision.
