J. R. Norton Co. v. General Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers Union

• Decision Date: 03 March 1989
• Docket Number: No. H001762,H001762
• Citation: 208 Cal.App.3d 430,256 Cal.Rptr. 246
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 132 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2438 J.R. NORTON COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GENERAL TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL 890, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 246

256 Cal.Rptr. 246

208 Cal.App.3d 430, 132 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2438

J.R. NORTON COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GENERAL TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION, LOCAL 890, Defendant and Appellant.

No. H001762.

Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California.

March 3, 1989.

Review Denied May 18, 1989.

Certiorari Denied Oct. 10, 1989.

See 110 S.Ct. 242.

Harray, Hudson & Kingsley, Kay T. Kingsley, Salinas, for defendant and appellant

Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown and Baerwitz, David G. Finkle and Gary Micon, Los Angeles, Finkle, Hersh & Stoll, David G. Finkle, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.

PREMO, Associate Justice.

General Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 890, (the Local) appeals from a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages to J.R. Norton Company for losses caused by negligent supervision of strikers during a 1982 labor dispute. The Local contends that the trial court gave conflicting instructions, erroneously giving the California common law agency liability and preponderance-of-the-evidence standard of proof, and correctly instructing in the language of section 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 106). ¹ The Local maintains that the section 6 standard of "clear proof" of actual participation in, approval of, or ratification of members' misconduct preempts state law, and that the erroneous instruction created an irreconcilable conflict. Therefore, the judgment in favor of J.R. Norton Company (Norton) should be reversed. Appellant also complains of various errors relating to the punitive damages.

We hold that section 6 does not preempt state law in this respect and find that appellant's further contentions are without merit.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a labor dispute six years ago between striking members of the Local and Norton, an Arizona farming corporation. After violence on the first day of picketing on September 21, 1982, Norton sued the Local, the International Teamsters Union (the International), and numerous individual strikers for injunctive relief and damages. A temporary restraining order was granted by the second day of the strike, but incidents of violence and intimidation continued during the next few weeks. In 1986, the claims for damages were brought to trial against the Local, five named individual defendants, and the International.

Norton alleged a conspiracy to commit unlawful acts among the defendants, tortious interference with business by all the defendants, a violation of Civil Code section The jury found the five individual defendants liable for both conspiracy and wrongful conduct other than negligent supervision; found the individuals in violation of Civil Code section 51.7 and assessed a fine against them pursuant to Civil Code section 52, subdivision (b); ³ found the Local liable for negligent supervision; and found both the Local and the individuals had acted with oppression and malice, and awarded and apportioned punitive damages. Local's share of the compensatory damages was $252,000 and of the punitive damages was $360,000. Local is the only party involved in this appeal.

51.7 ² alleging violence or intimidation in a labor dispute, and negligent supervision of the strike by the Local and the International. Norton claimed $637,106 in lost profits.

FACTS

In 1982, Norton farmed lettuce on a rotational system in Gilroy, Blythe, and the Imperial and Salinas Valleys in California, as well as in parts of Arizona and New Mexico.

Local was the elected representative of Norton employees whose job duties included driving haul trucks with box stitching machines from the truck shops on Norton's ranches to the lettuce fields. There, they stitched and folded boxes containing the harvested lettuce, and hauled them to the cooling shed for further handling. The employees who actually harvested the lettuce were not part of the Local and were not on strike. Some employees at the cooler walked off their jobs in sympathy with the strikers, but they were members of an AFL-CIO union and were not themselves on strike.

Negotiations took place between April and July of 1982. The negotiating committee was comprised of three individuals elected by Local's total membership, which had also authorized the strike. On September 21, 1982, the committee did call a strike, in conformity with the bylaws of the Local and the International. The International paid strike benefits.

Norton's causes of action arose from threats and violence centered at the Salinas Cooling Company, but also occurring at Norton's four lettuce ranches (Airport, Martin, Bungard Hart, and Firestone), all within three to four miles of the cooler.

On the first day of the strike, Norton was not harvesting, since it was "up on [its] fields." Between 15 and 30 pickets blocked the entrance to the Airport Ranch, at least one holding a rock. This interfered with Norton's plan to move its trucks to the cooler for safekeeping. Sheriff's deputies were called and there was pushing and shoving. One striker, who was also a negotiating team member, was arrested. Strikers followed Norton's drivers to the cooler, but there was no violence. The arrested striker was dropped off at the union hall at his request after he was booked.

Harvesting started at the Firestone Ranch on the second day. Sheriff's deputies again had to clear the road at Airport Ranch for trucks to be taken to Firestone. Only two trucks were taken out, and the picketers banged their signs on the trucks as they passed. A stitcher, that had been assigned before the strike to a striking employee, broke. Parts had been put in upside down, and other parts were missing. Sabotage by the employee was suggested. Spikes and nails were thrown on the roadways and under labor crew buses causing flat tires.

By the end of that day, Norton had obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting violence and limiting the number and locations of pickets. Norton also postponed harvesting for seven days. Notwithstanding the restraining order, however, "it got more hectic everyday [sic ] ... seemed like more apt to have violence everyday [sic ] as the days progressed," according to an eyewitness. Strikers tried to pull one Norton employee out of the truck he was driving, and threw rocks, breaking its windshield. A Norton field supervisor saw picketers hanging on to the windows and mirrors of trucks leaving the Airport Ranch and hitting the trucks with signs. One driver was shot at (his windshield was smashed). Another was told "there was going to be blood." A group of strikers confronted replacements at the motel where they were staying, leaving them all "pretty much scared for our life [sic ]." Strikers would drive head-on toward Norton trucks; drive in front of the trucks and slow down, preventing the trucks from changing lanes or making turns; and throw rocks and bottles at trucks.

Norton complained of much of this activity in two mailgrams sent to the Local on October 5 and 11. The Local president visited the picket line only once. He received periodic reports from the Local's business agent, who was in charge of the negotiating committee, sat on the Local's executive board, and was in charge of coordinating the strike. The president said that aside from the business agent, no one at the union, other than the picketers, was aware of who was picketing or of the location of the lines. The president disbelieved Norton's claims of strike violence and did not take steps to determine which strikers, if any, were involved.

The business agent testified that no picket captains were ever selected, nor did he give pickets any directions. Even after Norton complained of violence, no one was chosen to report to the Local about the strikers' conduct, although the business agent did speak to strikers about the allegations and did receive a denial. However, the business agent could not recall which strikers he had talked to or how many times he visited the lines. When he did visit the picket lines, he spoke "to them in general, keeping they're [sic ] morales up."

The Local's attorney visited the picket line twice, for about 15 minutes each time. After receiving the temporary restraining order, she gave a copy of the order to a striker, who testified that she told him to reduce the number of pickets.

She represented the arrested striker/negotiator, in a criminal action, free of charge. The striker was reimbursed for the fine, and received about $3,000 from the International for his negotiating and picketing activities. He and other strikers were authorized by the Local to charge food and gasoline for strike related activities.

The strike lasted until December 1982, although there was no evidence of strike activity in the Salinas Valley after mid-October. As a result of the strikers' activities, Norton's harvest was delayed and much of the crop was lost. Norton's equipment sustained damage, and Norton had to hire security guards.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Local argues first that the trial court erred in instructing on the negligent supervision cause of action because it gave conflicting instructions. It created an irreconcilable conflict in instructions when the court instructed on common law agency principles and the preponderance of evidence standard when it should have instructed only in the language of section 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Appellant contends that the federal statute has in fact preempted certain state common law principles of agency liability, and since section 6 was not applied consistently to all allegations against Local, the judgment finding Local liable for negligent supervision and awarding compensatory and punitive damages should be reversed.

Secondly, Local contends that the court erred in excluding evidence that was relevant on the issue of Local's exposure to Finally, appellant asserts that under California common law principles, the award of punitive damages against the Local...