King v. International Union of Operating Engineers

• Decision Date: 12 November 1952
• Citation: 250 P.2d 11,114 Cal.App.2d 159
• Parties: KING et al. v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS et al. Civ. 19052.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 11

250 P.2d 11

114 Cal.App.2d 159

KING et al. v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS et al.

Civ. 19052.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Nov. 12, 1952.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing. Dec. 1, 1952.

Hearing Denied Jan. 8, 1953.

Aaron Sapiro, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Parker, Stanbury, Reese & McGee, Los Angeles, William H. Thomas, Cleveland, Ohio, for respondents.

DORAN, Justice.

The complaint herein, for declaratory relief, was filed by plaintiffs as members of the defendant International Union of Operating Engineers and Local Union No. 12, both unincorporated associations. The dispute and controversy concern certain new by-laws which plaintiffs claim are invalid 'because of express violations of the basic Constitution in their contents, and by reason of the invalid method of adoption'. Plaintiffs contend that 'Local No. 12 is entitled to immediate self-rule, under the basic Constitution; and that an officer of the Court should be appointed to take over the operations of the Local Union from the International Representatives and to take all steps necessary to place the membership in democratic control of their Local Union No. 12'.

Among other defenses, the answer pleads res judicata, in that the issues of the present case 'have been tried and adjudicated against their (plaintiff's) contentions and prayer in the case of Klippel v. International Union of Operating Engineers, (Superior Court, Los Angeles County No. 568419) * * * commenced by members of the defendant International and Local No. 12 who purported to act and were found by the Court to have acted on behalf of members (thereof) as these plaintiffs claim to be doing; that there also appeared in that action certain intervenors who also alleged that they were acting for and on behalf of the members * * *'.

In the Klippel action just mentioned, Superior Court Judge Paul Nourse, on February 14, 1951, decided against the plaintiffs' contentions and found that although the International and its officers had failed to perform their duties in respect to carrying out 'the steps necessary to terminate International supervision and to restore to Local No. 12 and its members' the rights granted under charter and constitution, 'said wrongs are wrongs within the Union'; that remedy exists for said wrongs, to-wit, a petition to the President of the International to terminate International supervision and if that be denied, an appeal to the Executive Board of the International;' that plaintiffs had not pursued said remedies; that the intervenors had attempted to pursue said remedies by filing a petition but that the International President had denied such petition and that an appeal to the Executive Board was then pending; and that 'the evidence fails to establish by a preponderance that said appeal is futile or useless'.

The judgment in the Klippel case ordered 'that this action should be and is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the commencement of a new action, should defendant International fail within a reasonable time after the 30th day of June, 1951, to restore to Local No. 12 full control over its property and affairs, subject only to the provisions of the Constitution of defendant International', and ordered International to 'account to Local No. 12 for the funds and property, both real and personal, now and heretofore held by defendant International as trustee for Local No. 12'.

In defendant's answer to the present complaint it is affirmatively alleged 'that the present action is prematurely brought in that it has been commenced before June 30, 1951 (filed March 7, 1951), up to which time it has been decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction, (the Klippel case) in a decree expressly binding upon all members of Local No. 12, including these plaintiffs, that defendants are entitled to proceed with the establishment of local autonomy under the By-Laws referred to in this action'.

The present action came on for hearing before Judge Henry M. Willis on October 3, 1951, upon a Stipulation of Facts, in which it was stipulated 'that the files in the Klippel action shall be placed in evidence herein by reference', including findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment. The only testimony taken was that of defendants' witnesses, William H. Thomas, General Counsel for the International, and Philip A. Judd, Recording Secretary of Local No. 12.

Plaintiffs now appeal from the judgment entered by Judge Willis, holding that 'this action is barred by the plea and proof of res judicata founded upon the record and judgment in case No. 568419 (the Klippel case) * * *; that this action is subject to abatement and dismissal under the plea of estoppel of plaintiffs to prosecute the same by reason of failure to exhaust remedies provided in the Constitution of the International Union; that this action was commenced prematurely and should be dismissed for lack of statement of facts in the complaint herein, sufficient under the limitations of the judgment in case No. 568419 to constitute a cause of action thereby permitted, or to confer jurisdiction in this court to entertain this action'.

The controversy herein dates back to the year 1939 when at the request of various local unions to the respondent International, these unions were consolidated into one large local, from which time Local Union No. 12 existed and functioned as a supervised local, without automony, under the direction of International in accordance with Article VI, Section 3 of the International Constitution relating to supervised locals.

The International comparises a membership of some 150,000 persons throughout the United States; Local Union No. 12, having its principal office in Los Angeles, has a membership of approximately 10,000 persons. Since 1950, one Ralph Bronson has been International Supervisor of Local No. 12, by appointment from the General President of International, and as such Supervisor appointed all officers, etc. of the Local. Members of Local No. 12 have had no right to elect officers or representatives, to designate dues or to control property belonging to the Local, which property, of about $750,000 in value, has been administered by International in trust for the Local.

In December, 1950 and January, 1951, a referendum of the members of Local No. 12, was 'fairly and honestly conducted' by secret ballot mailed under supervision of Price, Waterhouse & Co., accountants, to determine whether autonomy was desired. The vote was 2,074 for autonomy, and 2,065 for continued supervision by International.

Prior to said referendum the General President of International had ordered the drafting of tentative by-laws by a convention called for that purpose, in preparation for the purpose autonomy of Local 12. A set of by-laws was then prepared, published in the official newspaper of Local 12 and distributed to the members. Officers were elected by the Local according to the by-law provisions, the principal officers being the same persons who had previously acted under appointment by the International Supervisor. As noted by the respondents, appellants made no effort to have these by-laws amended. As to the election of officers, appellants' attorney stated that 'There is no challenge as to the mode of election'.

The next step in the controversy...