Maggio, Inc. v. United Farm Workers

• Decision Date: 15 February 1991
• Docket Number: D,AFL-CI,No. D006453,D006453
• Citation: 227 Cal.App.3d 847,278 Cal.Rptr. 250
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 138 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2322, 138 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2338 MAGGIO, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA,efendant and Appellant.

Page 250

278 Cal.Rptr. 250

227 Cal.App.3d 847, 138 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2322,

138 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2338

MAGGIO, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Defendant and Appellant.

No. D006453.

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

Feb. 15, 1991.

As Modified Feb. 19, 1991.

Review Denied May 16, 1991.

Dianna Lyons, Sacramento, and Barbara Macri-Ortiz, Keene, for defendant and appellant.

Gray, Cary, Ames & Frye, Marcelle E. Mihaila, Jay W. Jeffcoat, San Diego, Finkle, Davenport & Barsamian and Ronald H. Barsamian, Fresno, for plaintiff and respondent.

KREMER, Presiding Justice.

The United Farm Workers of America (hereafter UFW or Union) appeals a judgment awarding damages to grower Maggio, Inc. for crop losses, damaged personal property, housing costs for replacement workers and additional security expenses caused by the tortious conduct of UFW strikers during a 1979 strike in the Imperial Valley.

On appeal, the UFW contends the evidence does not support a finding the Union authorized, participated in or ratified tortious activity of the strikers. The UFW contends the court erred in calculating damages, applying the collateral source rule, admitting hearsay statements by labor contractors, admitting a summary of Maggio's damage claims without expert testimony, and denying the UFW's motion to dismiss pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583, subdivision (a) for Maggio's failure to diligently prosecute the case. The UFW also seeks sanctions for Maggio's unsuccessful motion to dismiss the UFW's appeal. We affirm the judgment as modified.

BACKGROUND

In January 1979, the UFW sanctioned strikes against a number of vegetable growers in the Imperial Valley, including Maggio, after negotiations for a new contract failed. The strike against Maggio was sanctioned on January 25.

Eight struck growers ¹ responded to the strike by forming a Mutual Harvest Effort ² where they agreed to jointly harvest their lettuce fields, deduct costs and divide the proceeds equally. They recruited replacement workers, coordinated security and conducted a public relations campaign. Within the Mutual Harvest Effort, the growers had varying responsibilities. Maggio had responsibility for photographing and documenting strike activities and for analyzing which fields the Mutual Harvest Effort crew should harvest.

In 1979, the UFW's organization was run through its president, Cesar Chavez, and its executive board. The UFW delegated day-to-day responsibilities for the strike to executive board member Marshal Ganz. He reported directly to Cesar Chavez. Ganz was on the picket lines at least once a week and sometimes more through February 12 or 13 when his position as strike coordinator ended. The picket lines were also visited by other UFW leaders including Cesar Chavez, UFW Vice President Frank Ortiz who replaced Ganz in handling the day-to-day strike responsibilities in mid-February, and strike officer administrator The UFW bargaining units for the individual growers were called "ranch communities." The ranch communities elected members to a "ranch committee" which had authority to discipline someone who violated the union rules through a procedure requiring written notice of charges, a hearing, a vote by the ranch community membership on the appropriate punishment and giving a right of appeal to the UFW Executive Committee.

Jessica Govea. A UFW attorney also participated in noon meetings with the sheriff.

At the time of the strike, the ranch committees elected picket captains to maintain order on the picket lines and ensure the strikers followed the UFW strike rules. The ranch committee also appointed strike coordinators who had responsibility over the picket captains. At Maggio, the strike coordinator for the first part of the strike was Richard King and the picket captains included: Ramon Ruiz, Jorge Lopez, Roberto Beltran, Aurelio Guerrero, Rojelio Guerrero and Candelario Zamora.

The UFW's constitution pledged nonviolence. The Union's strike rules prohibited drinking, drugs and weapons on the picket line and the Union had a policy against blocking public streets. Union officials, including Ganz, the ranch committee, and the strike coordinator had authority to remove people from the picket line for violating union rules.

The record shows both the strikers and grower personnel were involved in some violence and public disorder. Both sides agree there were a number of days when confrontations occurred where UFW pickets engaged in rock-throwing, blocking access to and from grower facilities or fields, rushing into fields towards replacement workers, throwing nail-type devices ³ on the ground to cause flat tires in grower vehicles, overturning grower vehicles, carrying or using sticks, clubs, sling shots or other weapons. ⁴ The parties disagree as to whether there were "only ... isolated incidents of picket line misconduct" (as the UFW contends) or "relentless violence" by the UFW strikers (as Maggio contends). The trial court concluded there were "regular, consistent and repeated acts of unlawful picketing" which "created a climate of violence."

As a result of the strike, Maggio was not able to perform the necessary cultural practices for the crops at the proper times and was not able to fully harvest all the fields. Maggio vehicles and equipment were damaged and Maggio incurred costs of hiring additional security guards and of housing replacement workers in a motel.

The trial court awarded damages to Maggio of $1,562,494 for losses in harvesting carrots, broccoli and lettuce, $100,135 for the hiring of additional security guards, $3,149 for property damage to vehicles, irrigation equipment and other items and $13,675 for providing alternate housing to the labor camp for replacement workers.

DISCUSSION

I Liability Issues

The trial court found "by clear, unequivocal and convincing proof" that the union "authorized, participated in and ratified regular, consistent and repeated acts of unlawful picketing from and after January 29, 1979 through June 30, 1979." The court also found the union had "negligently failed to supervise and control the strike and the union's strikers." The court concluded

the union's conduct "was not the sole cause" of Maggio's crop losses but was a "substantial cause ... materially contributing to [Maggio's] injury" because: (1) the union "created a climate of violence which prevented [Maggio] from recruiting sufficient workers to harvest its crops" and (2) the union's "violent conduct ... rendered [the] harvesting activity [Maggio was able to mount] inefficient in certain cases and impossible in others...."

A. The UFW's Liability for the Tortious Acts of Strikers

A union has a right to engage in peaceful picketing. (City and County of San Francisco v. United Assn. of Journeymen etc. of United States & Canada (1986) 42 Cal.3d 810, 819, 230 Cal.Rptr. 856, 726 P.2d 538.) However, state courts may enjoin unions from mass picketing, violence, threats of violence and obstructions to ingress and egress which threaten public health and safety and may award damages to an employer for tortious acts committed by union members during the conduct of a strike. (Kaplan's Fruit & Produce Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 26 Cal.3d 60, 69, fn. 5, 160 Cal.Rptr. 745, 603 P.2d 1341; City and County of San Francisco v. United Assn. of Journeymen etc. of United States & Canada, supra, 42 Cal.3d 810, 819, 230 Cal.Rptr. 856, 726 P.2d 538.) The United States Supreme Court in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs (1966) 383 U.S. 715, 730, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1141, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 affirmed that state courts have the power to " 'grant compensation for the consequences, as defined by the traditional law of torts, of conduct marked by violence and imminent threats to the public order,' [citation]." ⁵

A union may be held liable for the damages caused by the tortious conduct of its members when the union authorized, participated or ratified the tortious acts. (Hiestand v. Amalgamated Meatcutters, Etc. (1983) 233 Kan. 759, 666 P.2d 671, 673.) In California, general rules of agency apply to a union's liability for the tortious conduct of its members so that a union is liable for the acts of its officers, agents or employees when they are acting within the scope of their employment. (J.R. Norton Co. v. General Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers Union (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 430, 443, 256 Cal.Rptr. 246, cert. den. --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 242, 107 L.Ed.2d 193.) To impose liability on a union for tortious acts committed by its members, it is not necessary to show the top union officials approved of the violence or illegal conduct; liability may be imposed based on the acts of lesser officials, strike coordinators or picket captains. (See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, supra, 383 U.S. at p. 732, 86 S.Ct. at p. 1142 ["the UMW representative"]; Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. McCarthy (1st Cir.1983) 708 F.2d 1, 11, cert. den. 464 U.S. 936, 104 S.Ct. 346, 78 L.Ed.2d 312 ["union's representative"]; Kayser-Roth Corp. v. Textile Workers Union of America (6th Cir.1973) 479 F.2d 524, 527, cert. den. 414 U.S. 976, 94 S.Ct. 292, 38 L.Ed.2d 219 [the "strike supervisors"]; see Ritchie v. United Mine Workers (6th Cir.1969) 410 F.2d 827 [examining circumstantial evidence of involvement by union members]; Carter-Glogau Labs v. Const. Lab. Local 383 (1986) 153 Ariz. 351, 736 P.2d 1163, 1165, 1169 [union stewards, union business agent and picket captains].)

B. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support the Court's Finding the Union Negligently Supervised the Strikers and Authorized, Participated in and Ratified the Illegal Conduct

The UFW attacks the court's determination the union negligently failed to supervise the strikers and was involved in the "The record demonstrates that the Union became aware after the fact of various isolated incidents of violence which occurred sporadically during the strike. However,...