Hill v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters etc. of America, Local 2

• Decision Date: 30 June 1975
• Parties: , 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2467, 77 Lab.Cas. P 11,057 Richard T. HILL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 25, et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 43751.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 722

122 Cal.Rptr. 722

49 Cal.App.3d 614, 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2467,

77 Lab.Cas. P 11,057

Richard T. HILL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 25, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Civ. 43751.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

June 30, 1975.

Hearing Denied Sept. 10, 1975.

Geffner & Satzman, Howard Rosen and Leo Geffner, Los Angeles, for defendants and appellants.

Coleman, Silverstein & Hobart, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.

Charles P. Scully and Donald C. Carroll, San Francisco, for amicus curiae Cal. Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.

Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg, Williams & Roger, Victor J. Van Bourg and David A. Rosenfeld, San Francisco, for amicus curiae.

LORING, Associate Justice. ^*

Richard T. Hill (Hill) filed a first amended complaint for damages against United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 25, an unincorporated association (Local 25), the Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters, an unincorporated association (Council), United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, ¹ an unincorporated association (United Brotherhood), Earl George Daley (Daley), Benjamin Fenwick (Fenwick), Joseph Wilk (Wilk), James Keene (Keene) and Kenneth Scott (Scott). The amended complaint contained four causes of action; the court sustained demurrers without leave to amend as to Counts I, III and IV and overruled the demurrer to Count II. ²

After answer, the case was tried by a jury. The court dismissed the action as to Keene. Hill voluntarily dismissed as to Scott and United Brotherhood. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Hill for $7,500 actual damages and $175,000 exemplary damages against Local 25, Council, and Daley and a verdict in favor of Fenwick and Wilk. Local 25, council and Daley appeal from the judgment.

CONTENTIONS

Appellants contend:

I. The superior court did not have jurisdiction where the alleged tort of intentionally inflicting emotional distress arose out of and as the result of alleged acts of discrimination in the hiring and dispatching policies and conduct by Local 25 inasmuch as that subject matter is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. ³

FACTS

The amended complaint alleged: that Local 25 was an unincorporated association affiliated with Council and United Brotherhood 'possessing and asserting jurisdiction over members of these organizations, that Local 25 is affiliated to the other organizations and is chartered by them and derives its power, duties and jurisdiction from each of them,' that defendants 'were and now are engaged in the business of being a labor union, or employees of a labor union,' that each defendant was the 'agent and employee of each of the remaining defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment,' that Hill was a member in good standing of each of the organizations. The critical paragraph (13) of the second cause of action reads:

'During the aforesaid period Defendants, and each of them, made repeated oral threats to Plaintiff to the effect that as long as they controlled the job-dispatching procedures that Plaintiff would be and he was given inferior assignments and be bypassed for work assignments. During the same period, as aforesaid, Defendants and each of them, repeatedly threatened Plaintiff with actual or defacto expulsion from the union in retaliation for his political activities, and further threatened to deprieve (sic) Plaintiff of his ability to earn a living as a carpenter.

'Defendants, and each of them, knew or reasonably should have known or expected that their outrageous conduct, threats, intimidation, and words would result in severe emotional, mental and physical damage to Plaintiff.'

The second cause of action further alleged that as a proximate result 'of the intentional and wrongful Discriminatory conduct practiced by Defendants and each of them as aforesaid Plaintiff has suffered a nervous breakdown, grievous mental anguish and bodily injury making him sick, sore and lame'; (emphasis ours) to his general damage in the sum of $500,000. The complaint also alleged 'all of the aforesaid acts, conduct and Discrimination by Defendants, and each of them was done deliberately and maliciously' (emphasis ours) for which Hill sought an additional $500,000 as punitive damages.

At trial, Hill produced evidence from which the jury could conclude that Daley was business agent of Local 25, that Delay dispatched members of Local 25 to job sites on work assignments, that Hill was vice president of Local 25 during the period 1955--1968, that he had certain disputes and disagreements with Daley, that in January 1967, while he (Hill) was unemployed and on the out of work assignment list of Local 25, he was by-passed in assignment, that he complained to Daley and was told to go complain to Council, that he was a 'jerk, knothead, idiot' and that he should go to another Local Union, that he had other disputes with Daley concerning a credit union established by Local 25 and expenses incurred by Daley, that Daley dispatched other carpenters to work assignments ahead of him and he complained to Daley on the dispatching procedures, that Daley told him he would sit on the bench until 'hell freezes over.' Hill testified that other Union officials (Wilk and Fenwick) treated him the same way, that he told Daley he would file with the National Labor Relations Board (N.L.R.B.). Hill produced evidence that certain job site employers requested that he (Hill) be assigned to their jobs, but Local 25 assigned other Union members.

Hill testified that he filed charges with Council about Daley's dispatching procedures but that the Executive Board of Council dismissed the charges. Hill admitted that he was given some work assignments but he was also given other assignments where the work was non-existent. On other assignments the type of work was unsatisfactory and he refused to accept it.

Hill testified that he ran for the office of President of Local 25 on the ground that Daley was a drunken fool, a disgrace to the Union and corrupt and that he was discriminating in running the hiring hall. Hill testified that in 1967 he filed a charge with the N.L.R.B. on the Dinwiddy-Simpson construction job (Crocker Citizens Bank Building), alleging discriminatory assignment and that in November 1968, the N.L.R.B. found that there had been discrimination and the notice of discrimination from the N.L.R.B. which the N.L.R.B. required be posted 'in a conspicuous place for 60 days' was buried by Daley on the window of one of the inner offices where nobody would see it.

Hill testified that he and Daley never engaged in any fight or struck any blows but that on one occasion Daley invited him to 'go out in the street and fight.' The invitation was apparently not accepted. Hill called Daley as an adverse witness and examined him at great length as to his work assignment practices.

Hill also produced evidence that Daley prevented him from performing his official duties as vice president of the Union, that Daley would not let him preside in the absence of the President because Daley claimed that he (Hill) was inadequate, that Daley ridiculed him and insulted him before other Union members, that Daley urged him to leave the Union, that Daley threatened him, that Daley threatened to starve him by refusing work assignments, that Daley fabricated a dispatch slip in order to place Hill's name at the bottom of the out-of-work list from which assignments were made, that Daley interfered with his unemployment insurance benefits by telling the state agency that Hill had refused work assignments, that Daley would assign him to jobs which he was not qualified for and 'just can't handle' which was contrary to Union rules and regulations which allowed members to classify themselves regarding their work capabilities, that Daley refused to honor employers' specific requests for Hill, that he was threatened and intimidated because he filed charges with the N.L.R.B., that an agent of Council told 250 union members '. . . a brother ran down to the (N.L.R.B.) and there's no brother going to extract money from this Union and stay in it,' that Daley dispatched him to short jobs only--the Ruane Job, 35 hours; the Burke Job, 0 hours; the Weymouth-Crowell Job, 2 days; the Spear Job, 2 days--during which period there were 108 job opportunities on which other members were assigned, that Daley fabricated a dispatch of Hill to the Steel Form Company job which Hill allegedly refused, when in reality Hill received no such assignment. This was done in order to place Hill's name at the bottom of the job assignment list.

Hill claims that the totality of this evidence 'constitutes an intentional infliction of severe emotional distress.' Hill produced medical evidence regarding his alleged damages.

The defendants produced substantial evidence that employers did not request or want Hill on various jobs, that Hill had refused to work on various jobs, that Hill talked too much on the job, that he interfered with the work on various jobs, that Hill called Daley a drunken bum and then the two often drank and played poker together.

Wilk testified that he frequently drank with Hill and Daley, that he offered Hill various work assignments which Hill refused, that Hill called him a 'dumb Polack' and would blow smoke in his face.

DISCUSSION

Despite the multiplicity of arguments for reversal presented by appellants, we conclude, as indicated, that one argument is basic and controlling--that the federal government has preempted this field and the state courts have no jurisdiction, that jurisdiction to right the alleged wrong is vested in the N.L.R.B. We regard four cases as controlling--San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed. 775; Local 100 v. Borden, 373 U.S. 690, 83 S.Ct. 1423, 10 L.Ed.2d 638; Iron...