In the Matter of the Arbitration between Directors Guild of America, Inc. and Warner Brothers, Inc. Relating to “Club Paradise”
Directors Guild of America Producers Arbitration Tribunal
Case No. 01882 (1986)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Warner Brothers, Inc. (Warner) (defendant) hired Harold Ramis, a member of the Directors Guild of America (DGA) (plaintiff), to direct the film Club Paradise. Warner was a signatory to the DGA’s Basic Agreement (BA), the collective-bargaining agreement governing the terms of employment for DGA members. Ramis was hired in the United States, planning and preproduction work took place in England, and principal photography took place in Jamaica. Pursuant to the terms of Warner’s voluntary collective-bargaining agreement with the British Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians (ACTT), Warner hired Pat Clayton as first assistant director for the planning and preproduction work conducted in England. It was undisputed that English law prohibited Warner from hiring a DGA first assistant director for the work performed in England. Warner retained Clayton as first assistant director for the principal photography in Jamaica. The DGA brought an arbitration against Warner, arguing that Warner violated the BA by failing to hire a DGA first assistant director for the principal-photography work in Jamaica even though Jamaican labor laws, unlike English labor laws, did not prohibit the hiring of a DGA first assistant director. Warner countered, arguing that (1) its collective-bargaining agreement with ACTT required Warner to retain Clayton as first assistant director and (2) because the production was based in England and English labor laws prohibited Warner from hiring a DGA first assistant director, Warner was allowed to keep the same non-DGA first assistant director even if the production moved to a country, like Jamaica, without a similar prohibition against hiring DGA members.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schwartz, Arbitrator)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.