# Douds v. Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees Union Local 584

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · October 2, 1957 · 248 F.2d 534

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6915365

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles T. DOUDS, Regional Director of the Second Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board v. MILK DRIVERS and DAIRY EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 584, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN and HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** October 2, 1957
- **Citations:** 248 F.2d 534
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lumbard
- **Judges:** Lumbard, Moore
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6915365

## Opinion text

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
While concurring, I would have preferred that the question of union implementation of “hot cargo” clauses be critically reexamined, as the decisions of this Court in Rabouin v. N. L. R. B., 2 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 906 , and in Milk Drivers & Dairy Emp., etc. v. N. L. R. B., 2 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 817 , seem to me to be contrary to both plain statutory language and the intent of the Congress. See N. L. R. B. v. Local 1976, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, 9 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 147 ; Alpert v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, D.C.Mass.1956, 143 F.Supp. 371 ; Douds v. Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees Local No. 680, D.C.N.J.1955, 133 F.Supp. 336 ; and Judge Levet’s first opinion of June 13, 1957 in the cause now before this Court, 154 F.Supp. 222 . See also N. L. R. B* v. Local 11, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, 6 Cir., 1957, 242 F.2d 932 . Contra: General Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local No. 886 v. N. L. R. B., D.C.Cir., *539 1957, 247 F.2d 71 . If Congress intended to protect the public and, in the case of § 8(b) (4) (B) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, primary employers, from the effect of secondary boycotts, and I believe it did so intend, other parties cannot insulate themselves by contract from such statutory prohibitions.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6915365. Public record. Not legal advice.