Cosentino v. District Council of Ports of Puerto Rico

107 F. Supp. 235, 30 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2683, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3777
CourtDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico
DecidedSeptember 30, 1952
DocketCiv. No. 6866
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 107 F. Supp. 235 (Cosentino v. District Council of Ports of Puerto Rico) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cosentino v. District Council of Ports of Puerto Rico, 107 F. Supp. 235, 30 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2683, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3777 (prd 1952).

Opinion

RUIZ-NAZARIO, District Judge.

This case is before the court on the petition of the Regional Director of the Twenty-Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations Board praying for injunctive relief, pending final determination by the Board, of the question whether respondents have or have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A), (4) (C), and (4) (D) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b) (4) (A, C, D), affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 152(6, 7).

At the outset it must be pointed out that the relief contemplated and prayed for in the petition is in the nature of an interlocutory injunction, as the final determination of the truth of the charges and the existence of a violation of the Act affecting commerce devolves upon the Board, subject to review by a Court of Appeals. Douds v. Local 1250, Retail Wholesale Dept. Store Union, 2 Cir., 170 F.2d 695. However, the situation unfolded during the trial by an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence, is so serious for the economic life of Puerto Rico, and indeed affecting as it does the very preservation of its economic life, that the Court is compelled to go beyond a mere finding of reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act has occurred and that equitable relief is just and proper.

It is unnecessary to recapitulate, in this opinion, the facts of the attempt at industrial dictatorship particularized in the Findings of Fact. It is nevertheless necessary, in order that all concerned may appreciate the meaning of these facts, and grasp their significance, that the court make a few observations which have no place in the formal items of Findings of Fact, or the dry verbiage of an interlocutory injunction.

Respondent Moreno is president of respondent ILA, and is also representative in Puerto Rico of the International Longshoremen’s Association, AFL. ILA is an organization which is composed of affiliated locals like respondents Locals 1740 and 1674, which represent employees who are employed in stevedoring and longshoremen’s work in and about the Port of San Juan, stevedores and longshoremen working in other island ports being also members of other ILA affiliated locals. Trades Council is affiliated with International Longshoremen’s Association, and does business with the latter through respondent Moreno, the latter’s representative in Puerto Rico. Anomalously, Trades Council represents local agricultural and factory workers employed in Puerto Rico. There is, of course, nothing sinister about all this, although it is rather difficult for the average person to find any similarity between the labor problems confronting longshoremen and those affecting agricultural workers. The situation only becomes sinister in view of the geographical fact that Puerto Rico is an island, dependent on ILA’s men, under Moreno’s leadership, for the loading and unloading of the ships without which our entire economy would shrivel up and die. The record in this case shows, beyond all doubt, that Moreno is well aware of the possibilities of the local situation, and this court takes notice of respondents Moreno’s and ILA’s behaviour in previous controversies of similar nature of which this court had cognizance in the past year. The affaire Roig here, is merely another attempt in the same direction. In labor wars on an island, control of the sea is as vital as in a war between nations, and respondents ILA and its affiliates, under respondent Moreno’s local leadership, have it in Puerto Rico. Without their acquiescence, ships do not sail, or if they do, they sail unladen.

The most recent attempt to take advantage of this local situation was being reviewed by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico while the hearings in this case were in progress. It was, precisely, with reference to the action then pending before the highest court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, that respondent Moreno used in his cable dated May 21, 1952, addressed to W. E. Townsend, Vice-President of ILA then attending the South Atlantic and Gulf Dis[237]*237trict Convention at Galveston, Texas (Exh. 3 Petit.) the following language:

“Insular Labor Board trying to impose dictatorial law through P. R. Supreme Court to compel us to load ships with slave salary handled hot cargo. We appeal to your convention help P. R. ILA members declare embargo in the continent on this companies (sic) sugar product if by court order we are forced to handle it.”

What the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico found in said case is at odds with respondent Moreno’s said charge. Its illuminating language will be found very valuable in this connection, and this court has taken the liberty of translating, freely, the following excerpts from the opinion therein:

“This case invites one to meditate much further than the bare limits of its issue: in the magnificent virtues of democracy, which have made it great, and in the weaknesses and intolerance of those enjoying it by which it may be endangered.
“In the inevitable disputes which arise between capital and labor, in the course of their relations, both sides at times seems to forget, in the exercise of their respective rights — whioh exist so long as the democratic heritage and the integrity of the State recognizing them are preserved — the moral and patriotic duty of finding a prompt solution to their controversies, to avoid affecting the economy and the security of the system which gives life to those rights and prevent forces from within or from without taking advantage of the vital function of democracy to undermine its foundations and try to get it 'to defeat itself.
“This case furnishes — within the lifeless dryness of a judicial proceeding — another example of the legitimate effort of a people struggling against want and poverty, produced by the imbalance between its continuous increase in population and its scanty resources, in its desperate determination to improve its health and its standard of living through the maximum development of its limited economic potentialities, for which industrial peace, in all phases of productive activity, is an indispensable factor, with its highest expression of stability — because this is an Island— on the maritime fronts.
* * * * * * “Under any circumstance, the right secured by Section 301(a) was conferred to the contracting parties; and it cannot be inferred, from the text thereof, nor from its legislative history, that it was intended to deprive states or territories from exercising the power to regulate the contemptuous conduct of the parties to said agreement, when such conduct endangers the very life of the community because of its injurious effect on the basic structure of its economy, considering all the factors of which it is composed and by which it is affected.” Labor Relations Board of Puerto Rico, Petitioner v. International Longshoremen Association (ILA), District Council of Ports of Puerto Rico and its President Rusebio P. Moreno, et als. No. 36 DPR-decided July 23, 1952. (Emphasis supplied.)

The certified union at Central El Ejemplo was invaded by ILA’s men, who presided over an irregular meeting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
107 F. Supp. 235, 30 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2683, 1952 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosentino-v-district-council-of-ports-of-puerto-rico-prd-1952.