Lawless v. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America
| Decision Date | 27 July 1956 |
| Citation | 300 P.2d 159,143 Cal.App.2d 474 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 38 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2571, 30 Lab.Cas. P 70,160 Andrew LAWLESS, E. C. Head and Leslie A. Grimes, as Trustees of Local 644 of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, an unincorporated association, Plaintiffs, v. The BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, an unincorporated association, and Herbert Sorrell, Defendants. Herbert SORRELL, Cross-Plaintiff and Appellant, v. The BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, an unincorporated association, and John Does I, II, III, Cross-Defendants and Respondents. Flaminia CONTINI, Plaintiff-Intervenor, Appellant, v. The BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 21566. |
William R. Walsh, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Alexander H. Schullman, Jack R. Berger, Los Angeles, and Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D. C., for respondents.
Cross complainant Sorrell, a former officer of a local union, and intervenor Contini, both noteholders of that local, appeal from a judgment denying damages resulting from the allegedly wrongful discharge of the officer and the subsequent dissolution of the local by the parent international union, to wit, the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, respondents, herein referred to as the 'Brotherhood.' Local 644 first sued the Brotherhood for declaratory relief as to its obligations by virtue of its contract with Sorrell and demanded an injunction against the Brotherhood's taking over Local 644. Thereupon, Sorrell filed his cross complaint, Miss Contini intervened and upon the issues raised by such pleadings the cause was tried. The Brotherhood is an international labor union, an off-shoot of the American Federation of Labor, and has jurisdiction over persons following the trades of painters, paperhangers and decorators. It is an unincorporated association, but it also issues charters to local unions of which Motion Picture Studio Painters Local 644, hereinafter referred to as Local 644, was one. The relationships between the Brotherhood, the locals, and the members is governed by the Constitution of the Brotherhood.
Appellant Sorrel served as business agent of Local 644 from 1937 until the dissolution of the local by the Brotherhood in January 1952. Although the office is an elective one, Sorrell performed his services also under a written contract of employment dated June 30, 1950, which was to expire June 30, 1953. In addition to the contract of employment, Sorrell held promissory notes of Local 644. The local had been engaged in strikes in the motion picture studios for a number of years. The series of disputes put a severe strain on the financial resources of the local and rendered it unable to pay its normal operating expenses. Thus, on September 9, 1950, the local issued a promissory note for a sum in excess of $36,000 to appellant Sorrell to liquidate indebtedness allegedly already incurred. Thereafter, until the time of its dissolution, the local issued further notes to Sorrell until the sum of its obligations exceeded $43,000.
Appellant Contini is also a holder of notes of the local allegedly given to her as compensation for services rendered as an employee and officer of 644. Also, she holds notes of the local assigned to her by payees who were officers and employees of such local. However, three of the notes now held by Contini were assigned by payees who are merely creditors and not members or officers of Local 644: one for $2,440 payable to Clara A. Moeller, a secretary in the local's office; two for $4,934.75 payable to the Conference of Studio Unions whose president was appellant Sorrell. All notes are due on demand and provide for attorneys' fees in the event of a suit for collection.
In early September of 1950, the General Convention of the Brotherhood was held in Detroit. Local 644 sent Sorrell as a delegate. However, acting on recommendation of the credentials committee, the convention voted that Sorrell and certain other delegates be not seated and that the General Executive Board of the Brotherhood be instructed to hear charges against Sorrell. The date of this resolution of the convention was September 7--just two days prior to the execution of the $36,000 note in favor of Sorrell.
The General Executive Board, the managing body of the Brotherhood between conventions, instructed the General Secretary-Treasurer to institute prosecution against Sorrell. On October 12, 1950, the General Secretary-Treasurer mailed to Sorrell the charges against him, which were to the effect that he had violated sections 107(d), 107(e), and 302(13) of the Constitution of the Brotherhood by associating with Communists and subversives, thereby tending to bring the Brotherhood into disrepute. The charges contained also a direction to Sorrell to attend a trial on the charges to be held in Lafayette, Indiana, on November 16, 1950. The hearing was held and on March 15, 1951, the General Executive Board issued a decision suspending Sorrell for five years and rendering him ineligible to hold office within the union for that period.
Following the decision, Local 644 advised the General Executive Board of its contract of employment with Sorrell and vainly requested a reconsideration and vacation of the decision. No conciliatory step having been attempted, the local then filed the original complaint in this action. While the action was pending, charges were preferred against the local for failure to comply with the decision of the General Executive Board. The trial having been completed, judgment was rnedered on January 7, 1952, whereby the charter of Local 644 was revoked. Thereupon, the General Executive Board ordered the members of 644 to clear into other locals. The physical assets of Local 644, worth approximately $250, were sold to Local 5 of the Brotherhood, and the purchase price was credited to advance dues paid by members of 644 who had gained membership in Local 5. After the dissolution of Local 644, Sorrell filed his cross complaint in the action and Contini intervened.
Appellant Sorrell contends that his suspension from office by order of the General Executive Board of the Brotherhood was wrongful in that he was deprived of a fair trial by being forced to defend himself 2,000 miles from his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pugh v. See's Candies, Inc.
...35, 112 P.2d 631; L. A. Pie Bakers Assn. v. Bakery Drivers (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 237, 243, 264 P.2d 615; Lawless v. Brotherhood of Painters (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 474, 478, 300 P.2d 159); alternatively, a union's efforts to cause termination of a supervisory employee for reasons bearing upon......
-
Welch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Film Co.
...with a party to a contract is privileged to induce the breach of that contract. [Citations.]" (Lawless v. Brotherhood of Painters (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 474, 478, 300 P.2d 159.) "The privilege to induce an otherwise apparently tortious breach of contract is extended by law to further certain......
-
Wise v. Southern Pac. Co.
...be both wrongful and unprivileged. (Imperial Ice Co. v. rossier (1941) 18 Cal.2d 33, 38, 112 P.2d 631; Lawless v. Brotherhood of Painters (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 474, 478, 300 P.2d 159; May v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., supra; 30 Am.Jur. 82; 26 A.L.R.2d In the instant case, it is alle......
-
Aalgaard v. Merchants Nat. Bank, Inc.
...to protect a financial interest must do so in good faith]; see Rest.2d Torts, §§ 767-773, pp. 4-52.)9 Lawless v. Brotherhood of Painters (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 474, 478, 300 P.2d 159, simply states a servant is privileged to induce breach of a master's contract without any discussion of the ......
-
Interference with Business Relations
...Jacuzzi , 224 Cal.App.2d 549 (1964); see also Mallard v. Boring , 182 Cal.App.2d 390 (1960); Lawless v. Brotherhood of Painters, etc. , 143 Cal.App.2d 474 (1956). The interrogatories set forth in this section explore the defendant’s status for purposes of the manager’s privilege, the reason......
-
Toward Coherence in Civil Conspiracy Law: a Proposal to Abolish the Agent's Immunity Rule
...P.2d 390 (Kan. 1962). 109. Imperial Ice Co., 112 P.2d at 632. 110. E.g., Lawless v. Bhd. of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of Am., 300 P.2d 159, 162 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956); May, 370 P.2d at 395 ("While it is true that an action will lie for unjustifiably inducing a breach of contract b......
-
Interference With Business Relations
..., 224 Cal.App.2d 549 (1964); see also Mallard v. Boring , 182 Cal. App.2d 390 (1960); Lawless v. Brotherhood of Painters, etc. , 143 Cal.App.2d 474 (1956). The interrogatories set forth in this section explore the defendant’s status for purposes of the manager’s privilege, the reasonablenes......
-
Interference With Business Relations
..., 224 Cal.App.2d 549 (1964); see also Mallard v. Boring , 182 Cal. App.2d 390 (1960); Lawless v. Brotherhood of Painters, etc. , 143 Cal.App.2d 474 (1956). The interrogatories set forth in this section explore the defendant’s status for purposes of the manager’s privilege, the reasonablenes......