Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.
Decision Date | 09 April 1987 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AND AUTO TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL NO. 70 et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Appellant, DALZIEL SUPPLY COMPANY et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants. A031528. |
Franklin Silver, Beeson, Tayer, Silbert & Bodine, San Francisco, for plaintiffs and respondents.
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Charlton G. Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.
Thomas J. Dowdalls, Bradley W. Kampas, Severson, Werson, Berke & Melchior, A Professional Corp., San Francisco, for real parties in interest and appellants.
California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (Board) together with real parties in interest Dalziel Supply Company and other employers in the plumbing supply business (employers) appeal a judgment of the trial court issuing a peremptory writ of mandate compelling the Board to set aside its decision to deny unemployment insurance benefits to certain claimants.
The administrative proceedings below were initiated as a result of a number of employees of the real parties in interest filing claims for unemployment benefits for the period of time the employees were locked out of work by their employers. The claims involved employees of eleven plumbing supply companies represented by seven different local unions affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and affected work locations in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. All of the cases were consolidated for hearing before an administrative law judge of the Board. At the administrative hearing and throughout the proceedings before the Board, the individual claimants were represented by their respective unions and the individual employers were all represented by the same law firm.
At the administrative hearing all facts were stipulated to, and they consisted primarily of the facts stated in the investigation memoranda of the trade dispute section of the Employment Development Department. Following the hearing the administrative law judge issued a decision holding that all of the claimants were eligible for benefits under section 1262 of the California Unemployment Insurance Code, 1 because they had voluntarily left their jobs due to a trade dispute. The claimants appealed that decision, and the Board upheld the decision except for Teamsters Local 287 in San Jose. The unions then filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court without naming individual claimants as parties to the petition.
In their answer to the petition for writ of mandate both the Board and real parties in interest (the employers) argued, as an affirmative defense, that the unions lacked standing to bring the action. The trial court found that the unions had standing and granted the writ based upon the merits of the case.
There is no conflict as to the underlying facts. With the addition of one paragraph from the administrative record, the superior court adopted the statement of facts contained in the Board's decision.
On appeal the Board cites Bodinson Mfg. Co. v. California E. Com. (1941) 17 Cal.2d 321, 109 P.2d 935, for the proposition that the unions have no standing to bring this action, since they have no beneficial interest in its outcome. The unions, in turn, rely on several cases, the most pertinent of which are International Union of United Auto. etc. Workers v. Department of Human Resources Dev. (hereafter UAW ) (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 924, 130 Cal.Rptr. 368 and Stanford v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (hereafter Stanford ) (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 98, 195 Cal.Rptr. 1, for authority that they do have standing to bring a petition on behalf of their members. For the reasons stated below we conclude the unions are correct in their position.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1086 expresses the controlling statutory requirements for standing for mandate: (Emphasis supplied.) Although it is not necessary that someone who petitions for a writ of mandate be a party to the action below, he must demonstrate that he is beneficially interested in the outcome of the proceeding. (Peery v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 837, 841, 176 Cal.Rptr. 533, 633 P.2d 198.) (Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796, 166 Cal.Rptr. 844, 614 P.2d 276.)
Whether a voluntary membership organization such as a union has standing to bring an action as the representative of its constituents has been addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Warth v. Seldin (1975) 422 U.S. 490, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343. 3 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mohilef v. Janovici, B096420
...Unified School Dist., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at pp. 37-38, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 474.; Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Board (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1515, 1525, 236 Cal.Rptr. 78.) As it turns out, the Mohilefs raise only questions of law in challenging the m......
-
Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com.
...that its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right. (Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1515, 1522, 236 Cal.Rptr. 78.) To have standing to seek a writ of mandate, a party must be "beneficially interested......
-
Waste Management v. County of Alameda, C024917.
...Com., supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 797, 166 Cal. Rptr. 844, 614 P.2d 276; Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1515, 1521, fn. 3, 236 Cal.Rptr. 78.) And with respect to CEQA, federal authorities are considered persuasive. (No Oil, In......
-
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 148 v. DEPT. OF …
...process by giving the employer an unfair advantage. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70 v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 190 Cal.App.3d 1515, 1522, 236 Cal.Rptr. 78, 83 (1987) (Teamsters). There, the union contended that it was locked out by the employer, whi......