Douds v. Metropolitan Federation of Architects
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
75 F. Supp. 672 (1948)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
The Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians, Local 231 (defendant), represented employees of engineering company Ebasco Services, Inc. When negotiations failed to reach a new collective-bargaining agreement, the union called a strike. The month beforehand, Ebasco began subcontracting out work to Project Engineering Company. After the strike started, Ebasco gave Project more work, including unfinished work strikers had started. Ultimately, Project had 75 percent of Ebasco’s work. Project’s contract said Project employees remained its own, but in brochures Ebasco said it had numbers of personnel available that included subcontractors. Ebasco set maximum wages, paid Project hourly for its employees, and invoiced customers for technician time without distinguishing between Ebasco employees and subcontractors. Ebasco supervisors regularly visited Project to oversee subcontracted work and increased those visits after the strike to continue supervising jobs started by strikers. After repeatedly asking Project to refuse work from Ebasco, the union picketed with signs calling Project a “scab” shop for Ebasco, prompting several Project employees to resign. Project filed charges accusing the union of conducting an unlawful secondary boycott. The regional director of the National Labor Relations Board, Charles Douds (plaintiff), petitioned to enjoin the picketing.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rifkind, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.