Allen v. Los Angeles County Dist. Council of Carpenters

• Decision Date: 27 March 1959
• Citation: 337 P.2d 457,51 Cal.2d 805
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 43 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2789, 36 Lab.Cas. P 65,322 Jim ALLEN, Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS (an Unincorporated Association), et al., Respondents. L. A. 24678

Page 457

337 P.2d 457

51 Cal.2d 805, 43 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2789, 36 Lab.Cas. P 65,322

Jim ALLEN, Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS (an Unincorporated Association), et al., Respondents.

L. A. 24678.

Supreme Court of California

March 27, 1959.

Herbert W. Simmons, Jr., Abraham Gorenfeld and A. L. Wirin, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Arthur Garrett, Los Angeles, for respondents.

SPENCE, Justice.

Plaintiff sought a writ of mandate to compel his restoration to membership in his local union, and also a judgment for damages against the union and certain officials and members thereof for alleged wrongful expulsion. While he also sought herein a writ of mandate and a judgment for damages against his former employers, the defendant employers did not appear and the action was dismissed as to them. Plaintiff had previously filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board.

Following the trial of the present action, the court found and concluded that plaintiff's expulsion was 'lawful and justified'; that he had been 'fairly charged, tried and convicted, upon substantial evidence, of a substantial offense under the constitution and laws' of the union 'in accordance with the requirements of due process of law'; that none of 'plaintiff's rights of person or property have been violated'; that neither the union 'nor any defendant herein is required to restore plaintiff to membership'; that plaintiff sustained 'no damage or injury'; and that 'insofar as his loss of employment by the corporate defendants herein is concerned and any reinstatement to employment by them and any wages lost since plaintiff was severed from such employment the exclusive jurisdiction thereof is in the National Labor Relations Board and this Court is without jurisdiction further to consider the same.' From the judgment thereupon entered denying the relief demanded, plaintiff appeals.

This litigation apparently arises out of the attempt of the union to exclude from membership persons who are members of the Communist Party or related organizations. That the union could properly provide in its constitution and laws for excluding such persons is made clear by federal legislation (U.S. Stats. at Large, Vol. 68, Public Law 637, Chap. 886, p. 775, 50 U.S.C.A. § 841 et seq.,) and by state legislation (Gov.Code, § 1027.5). The cited federal act, relating to 'Communist organizations,' including the 'Communist Party' and 'Communist-infiltrated organizations,' declares in part: 'The Congress hereby finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States. * * * It is the means whereby individuals are seduced into the service of the world Communist movement, trained to do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial performance of their revolutionary services.' The cited state act, relating to 'World Communism,' declares in part: 'There exists a world-wide revolutionary movement to establish a totalitarian dictatorship based upon force and violence rather than upon law.'

The union's constitution, by-laws, and ritual required each member to take an oath and required the president to advise the new member, before taking that oath, that the union did not recognize the Communist Party as a political organization. Plaintiff became a member of this union, known as Local 1976 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. The above-mentioned oath which he took when becoming a member read as follows: 'I further affirm and declare that I am not now affiliated with and never will join or give aid, comfort or support to any Revolutionary Organization or to any organization that tries to disrupt or cause dissension in any Local Union, District Council, * * * of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.'

Certain members of the union later filed charges against plaintiff, in the manner provided in the by-laws, for having 'over a period of years given aid, comfort and support to Communistic-Front organizations.' Timely notice of the charges was served on plaintiff, and a hearing was had before a duly appointed committee, with plaintiff and his counsel present. The evidence introduced consisted largely of newspaper articles and other documentary items.

Several articles were from the Daily People's World. One listed plaintiff as a union leader and signer of a statement released by the Civil Rights Congress, asking an end to contempt proceedings against persons who had refused to turn over membership lists to the courts. The statement declared: 'We demand the rights of Communists, along with those of all Americans, be fully respected.' Another, entitled 'Lead the Fight, Communists Urge NAACP,' stated that certain reactionary elements in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People had demanded removal of Communists and other progressives from the nominating committee of the NAACP and from nomination in recent elections; and that plaintiff was one of those barred from office. Another described plaintiff as a leader in the labor movement and as one of the founders of the Negro Labor Council. An item from another newspaper stated that the Attorney General of the United States had declared that this Council was to be named on the list of organizations designated by the Justice Department as subversive. Other newspaper items were introduced setting forth that an officer of the Civil Rights Congress, who had been cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to divulge the names of members of his group or contributors to it, would speak at a reception for him and at a mass meeting, and that plaintiff was one of the sponsors of the reception. In was further stated that the scheduled speaker had admitted that his organization was once listed among Communist-front groups by the United States Attorney General. There was also introduced at the hearing a copy of the Fourth Report of Un-American Activities in California, in which the Civil Rights Congress is declared to be a subversive organization and under Communist control; and a document used by the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles likewise listing the Civil Rights Congress among subversive organizations. In addition, there were introduced such documents as a postcard printed by plaintiff urging union members to attend his trial; letters from a state senator addressed to a union officer setting forth for evaluation various instances of plaintiff's activities; and a number of letters and postcards, some anonymous, sent to the union in protest of plaintiff's oncoming trial. Plaintiff made no denial before the committee of his membership in the organizations named or of his activities as recited in the newspaper articles.

In the present action, plaintiff did testify but again made no such denial. He merely challenged the regularity of the proceedings before the committee, and the competency and sufficiency of the evidence presented there. In connection with the issue of damages, his testimony was extremely evasive, equivocal and uncertain in fixing his actual earnings for the years in question. When questioned regarding the current year, he professed not to have computed his earnings with any exactitude although he knew that he was 'coming to testify' at the trial. With respect to prior years, he was able to furnish only partial reports and could not remember whether the accountant had given him copies of his income tax returns. A union delegate testified as to the employment and dispatching policies of the union. He stated that the union kept an open and nondiscriminatory hiring list; that the local would permit members or nonmembers to sign the list so as to be available for calls to work; and that if plaintiff had applied, he could have been sent on jobs on the same basis as union members.

The evidence in court established that plaintiff had been a business agent and an officer of his local union, and as such agent he would have had to file certain affidavits, including the non-Communist affidavit required by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq. Plaintiff testified that he could not remember whether he had ever signed such an affidavit. He insisted, however, that since his expulsion from the union, he had been shunned by his fellow-workers, but it appears that the same reaction could have resulted from his activities in support of the causes of the organizations named in the evidence presented at the committee hearing. Plaintiff was then asked in court; 'Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?' He first responded that he 'wouldn't like to answer that question.' Later, he stated that he would like to stand on his constitutional rights and would refuse to answer the question because it might tend to incriminate him. Finally, in attempting an explanation, plaintiff testified: 'The reason that I give is, that if I answer this question 'no,' then I understand that later on somebody could come along and accuse me of lying here, which legally is considered perjury.' This line of questioning was material on the theory of plaintiff's alleged damages as well as on his plea for reinstatement in the union when Communist Party membership would make him ineligible therefor.

On this appeal, plaintiff's main attack is directed at the proceedings before the union committee and the trial court's findings sustaining his expulsion as a result of such proceedings. He challenges the sufficiency of the charges made against him and the sufficiency of the evidence before the committee to justify his expulsion. He further challenges the finding of the trial court that he had suffered no damage by reason of his expulsion, the ruling of the trial court admitting and considering his refusal to testify concerning membership in the Communist Party, and ...