Charles H. Benton, Inc. v. Painters Local Union No. 333, 36
| Citation | 291 P.2d 13,45 Cal.2d 677 |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 45,D,No. 36,36,45 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Parties | , 37 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2250, 29 Lab.Cas. P 69,643 CHARLES H. BENTON, Inc., a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAINTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 333, Building Materials and Dump Truck Drivers, Local, and United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Association, Localefendants and Appellants. L. A. 22750 |
P. H. McCarthy, Jr., F. Nason O'Hara, Herbert S. Johnson, San Francisco, and Thomas Whelan, San Diego, for appellants.
Gray, Cary, Ames & Frye, James W. Archer and Ward W. Waddell, Jr., San Diego, for respondents.
The questions presented in this case are substantially the same as those decided in Garmon v. San Diego Building Trades Council, Cal., 291 P.2d 1. Here, as in the Garmon case, the appeal is from a judgment enjoining the unions from engaging in certain activities and awarding the employer damages.
The findings of fact may be summarized as follows:
Charles H. Benton, Inc., is a California corporation whose business is the mixing and selling of paint and paint supplies in interstate commerce. It is also engaged in the roofing business, but no express finding was made that this phase of the business did or did not affect interstate commerce. Defendants are a painters' union, a truck drivers' union and a roofers' union.
The painters' and truck drivers' unions advised the company that they intended to organize its employees in the paint business. Thereafter, on several occasions, they presented a proposed contract which included a provision that The company refused to enter into the contract, asserting that it would be illegal for it to do so unless and until its employees had designated the unions as their collective bargaining representatives. It requested the unions to join with it in appropriate steps to ascertain if its employees desired such representation. After negotiations with union representatives, the employees refused to allow the unions to act for them. Neither union has been recognized by the National Labor Relations Board as the representative of the employees.
The two unions then picked plaintiff's place of business. The picketing was intended to compel the employer 'by means of pressure brought upon plaintiff's business through defendant' roofers' union and plaintiff's roofer employees 'by the refusal' of those employees 'to continue employment' while the pickets were maintained and to compel the company to sign the offered contract 'in the belief that if such a contract is executed and put into effect, the employees of the plaintiff will join, or be compelled to join, the defendant Unions, and that no unfair labor practice charge will be filed with the National Labor Relations Board.' The picketing was not intended to educate Benton's employees or to inform them of the benefits of unionization.
The roofers' union has caused roofer employees to refuse to work for the company, and has continued its strike, thereby disrupting the roofing business to the damage of the company. There is an existing contract between the roofers' union and the company with respect to the roofing employees and their wages, hours and working conditions. This contract provides: 'The Employer shall call upon the Union for such men as he may from time to time need, and the Union shall furnish the Employer the required number of qualified and competent workmen needed by the Employer, qualifications and competency to be determined by the Employer. * * *' By other provisions the union and the employer agreed 'that there shall be no strikes or lockouts during the life of this Agreement and that any and all grievances or controversies which may arise with respect to the interpretation or application shall be settled as hereinafter provided.' Any dispute not settled by a conciliator, appointed by the parties, was to be referred to a conference board composed of equal representatives of each party, with an additional member if necessary. The roofer's union refused to follow this procedure in the present controversy.
Upon these findings the court rendered a judgment which enjoins the unions from picketing the company's place of business, inducing employees to leave work or doing any other acts tending to injured the business in order to compel the company to execute the proffered contract until one of the two unions has been properly designated as the collective bargaining agent for the employees. The roofers' union is enjoined from 'inducing any roofers employed by the plaintiff to refuse to work for the plaintiff, or from calling or inducing any work stoppage among the roofers employed by the plaintiff, or from refusing to make reasonable efforts to supply competent roofers to plaintiff upon request, so long as the contract between plaintiff and said defendant shall remain in effect, and requiring the said defendant to inform its members that they will not be discriminated against, fined, or otherwise disciplined for working for the plaintiff.' The judgment also awarded damages of $2,243.78 against the defendants.
As grounds for reversing the judgments, the painters' and truck drivers' unions assert that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin their activities or to award damages against them, because a labor dispute in a business affecting interstate commerce is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. They contend also that they did not violate the law of this state. The roofers' union claims that its contract with the employer is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, and therefore unenforceable by either party. But it also insists that it did not violate the collective bargaining procedure specified by that contract. The company...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Messner v. Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers and Cosmetologists, Intern. Union of America, Local 256
...DeMille v. American Federation of Radio Artists, 31 Cal.2d 139, 144-145, 187 P.2d 769, 175 A.L.R. 382; Charles H. Benton, Inc. v. Painters Union, 45 Cal.2d 677, 683, 291 P.2d 13; see Fortenbury v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 405, 409, 106 P.2d 411; Williams v. International etc. of Boilermake......
-
Garmon v. San Diego Bldg. Trades Council
...for a closed shop is lawful even when undertaken by a union representing none of the employees. In Charles H. Benton, Inc. v. Painters Local Union, 45 Cal.2d 677, 681, 291 P.2d 13, 16, a decision handed down at the same time as our first decision in the present case, a majority of the court......
-
McCarroll v. Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters
...75 S.Ct. 480, 99 L.Ed. 546; Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Bd., 351 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 598, 1 L.Ed.2d 601; Charles H. Benton, Inc., v. Painters Union, 45 Cal.2d 677, 681, 291 P.2d 13. The conduct alleged in the present case, however, cannot reasonably be deemed to fall within any of the provisi......
-
Chavez v. Sargent
...case (Garmon v. San Diego Bldg. Trades Council (1955), 45 Cal.2d 657, 665(13), 291 P.2d 1) and in Charles H. Benton, Inc. v. Painters Union (1955), 45 Cal.2d 677, 681(5), 291 P.2d 13, this court, without finding necessity or occasion to reconsider the construction of sections 921 through 92......