Cory Gardiner, William E. Bishop v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., United States Lines, Inc., Etc., Defendants

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b), Defendants-Shipowners appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The issue presented is whether the provision in a seamen’s collective bargaining agreement calling for a rate of maintenance will be held binding and will be enforced even if, when viewed in isolation, the rate fixed in the agreement ' is inadequate. The district court held that union members are not bound-by such a rate of maintenance and it could not be enforced.

I. BACKGROUND

In August, 1983, seven seamen who belong to maritime unions filed an action on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly-situated seamen (Seamen) against eight maritime employers and a proposed defendant class represented by those employers (Shipowners). The Seamen assert a right under maritime law to maintenance payments from the Shipowners greater than the daily rate of $8.00 called for in the collective bargaining agreements between the Shipowners and the Seamen’s unions.

The parties stipulated that the Shipowners would move for dismissal and/or summary judgment on the ground that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief sought and that…

concurring and dissenting:

I concur in that portion of the majority opinion that concludes federal labor statutes have not preempted federal maritime common law. I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that a union can bargain away the individual seaman’s common law right to maintenance by agreeing to a wholly inadequate figure as a daily maintenance rate.

The ancient right to maintenance originated in medieval sea codes. G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty § 6-6, at 281 (2d ed. 1975). The purposes of maintenance are to protect “poor and friendless” seamen from the broad variety of hazards encountered at sea, to encourage seamen “to engage in perilous voyages with more promptitude, and at lower wages,” and to promote marine commerce. Vella v. Ford Motor Co., 421 U.S. 1, 3-4 , 95 S.Ct. 1381, 1382-83 , 43 L.Ed.2d 682 (1975); Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 318 U.S. 724, 727 , 63 S.Ct. 930, 932 , 87 L.Ed.2d 1107 (1943); G. Gilmore & C. Black, supra, § 6-6, at 281 (quoting Harden v. Gordon, 11 F.Cas. 480, 483 (C.C.D.Me.1823) (No. 6047)). The doctrine imposes liability regardless of fault and arises out of the employment relationship. Aguilar, 318 U.S. at…

786 F.2d 943 122 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2001 , 1986 A.M.C. 1521 , 54 USLW 2544 , 104 Lab.Cas. P 11,921 Cory GARDINER, William E. Bishop, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., United States Lines, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants- Appellants. Nos. 84-2354, 84-2547. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 17, 1985. Decided April 8, 1986. A. Curtis Sawyer, Jr., Jarvis, Miller, Brodsby & Baskin, Inc., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees. Sam D. Delich, Sandra McCandless, Graham & James, San Francisco, Cal., Mark Chavez, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, San Francisco, Cal. Howard L. Ganz, Porskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, for defendants-appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before TANG and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and HILL, * District judge. TANG, Circuit Judge: 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292 (b), Defendants-Shipowners appeal the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The issue presented is whether the provision in a seamen's collective bargaining agreement calling for a rate of maintenance will be held…