## Facts

- Ebasco Services, Inc. provided engineering services; the union represented Ebasco employees under a contract that expired September 1, 1947.
- After negotiations failed, the union began a strike against Ebasco on September 5, 1947.
- Project Engineering Company, an independent partnership with no common ownership with Ebasco, performed the same type of engineering and drafting work.
- Project had an open subcontracting arrangement with Ebasco beginning December 19, 1946; during the strike, Ebasco increasingly relied on Project, and Project performed a large share of Ebasco’s work (eventually about 75%).
- Although Project’s workers remained Project employees, Ebasco exercised significant control over subcontracted work, including setting maximum wages, paying based on hours worked, billing customers without distinguishing subcontractors, and supervising the work through site visits that increased after the strike began.
- The union urged Project to stop accepting Ebasco work, asserting Project was taking over struck work and weakening the Ebasco strike.
- When Project continued the work, the union picketed Project’s premises with signs labeling it a “scab” shop; the activity contributed to resignations by some Project employees.
- Project filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging an unlawful secondary boycott under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(A).
- The NLRB Regional Director petitioned under NLRA § 10(l) for a temporary injunction to restrain the union’s picketing pending Board proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the union’s picketing of Project was unlawful secondary pressure on a neutral employer under NLRA § 8(b)(4)(A), or lawful primary activity because Project functioned as an extension of Ebasco for the struck work.
2. Whether the Regional Director showed reasonable cause to believe a § 8(b)(4)(A) violation occurred and that injunctive relief was “just and proper” under NLRA § 10(l).

## Decision

- The court denied the § 10(l) petition for a temporary injunction.
- On the record presented, the court found insufficient basis to characterize the union’s conduct as a prohibited secondary boycott against a neutral employer.
- The court treated Project’s role in performing and completing Ebasco’s struck work, under Ebasco’s economic and supervisory influence, as supporting a conclusion that the picketing was primarily directed at preserving the effectiveness of the Ebasco strike.
- Because the alleged violation was doubtful and an injunction would restrain apparently legitimate strike-related activity, the court found the statutory standard for preliminary relief was not met.

## Legal Principles

- NLRA § 10(l) injunctive relief requires (1) reasonable cause to believe an unfair labor practice occurred and (2) a showing that an injunction is “just and proper.”
- NLRA § 8(b)(4)(A) turns on the “object” of union conduct; prohibited conduct includes union pressure aimed at forcing a neutral employer to cease doing business with the primary employer.
- The primary/secondary distinction is functional: where a purported neutral is substantially performing the primary employer’s work under the primary employer’s direction or control, union pressure may be treated as primary even if it harms the secondary firm.
- Collateral effects on a third party do not alone convert otherwise primary strike activity into an unlawful secondary boycott.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enjoin the union’s picketing pending NLRB proceedings because the evidence suggested Project was closely tied to Ebasco’s struck operations and the union’s aim was to prevent diversion of struck work, making a § 8(b)(4)(A) secondary-boycott violation—and thus § 10(l) interim relief—insufficiently supported on the presented record.


Douds v. Metro. Fed’n of Architects, Eng’rs, Chemists & Technicians, Loc. 231, 75 F. Supp. 672 (S.D.N.Y. 1948)