Question: Shortly after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the United States imposed an embargo on exports to the Soviet Union. However, some grain shipments were exempted from the embargo. Nevertheless, the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA), apparently disagreeing with the exemptions, adopted a resolution that its longshoremen would not handle any goods exported to or arriving from the Soviet Union. Sovfracht Chartering Corporation, a Soviet government maritime agency, chartered a Belgian ship (The Belgium) to transport exempt and duly licensed grain from Houston to Russia.

The Houston stevedore companies had to hire all longshoremen from ILA hiring halls. When TTT Stevedores, an employer party to an ILA collective bargaining agreement, sought to load the Soviet-bound grain on board The Belgium, it was informed that the ILA local would not provide any of its members to do the work. When informed of this decision, Sovfracht canceled The Belgium's stop in Houston. Was the ILA guilty of a secondary boycott? If so, against whom? What arguments can be made that this action was not illegal activity under the NLRA? See ILA v. NLRB [723 F.2d 963, 115 L.R. R.M. 2093 (D.C. Cir. 1983)].