Mayers v. Loew's Inc., L
| Decision Date | 25 August 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. L,L |
| Citation | 221 P.2d 26,35 Cal.2d 822 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 18 Lab.Cas. P 65,974 MAYERS et al. v. LOEW'S Inc. A. 21480 |
Loeb & Loeb, Keating Coffey, all of Los Angeles, Adrian A. Kragen, San Francisco, and Herman F. Selvin, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Mohr & Borstein and Alfred J. Borstein, all of Los Angeles, for respondents,
Plaintiffs brought this action to recover a bonus of one-half their regular daily wage allegedly due them for the period July 1, 1941 to August 30, 1942 under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between Local 728, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and defendant motion picture studio. Defendant appeals from a judgment entered for plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs are members of Local 728. During the period for which compensation is sought they were employed by defendant on its night rigging crew. With minor exceptions not here material, their work shift began at nine P. M. During the fall and winter of 1941 negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement covering all the major studios in Hollywood, including defendant, were conducted between IATSE through its international representative and the business agents of the various Hollywood locals, and the studios through Fred Pelton as Producers' Labor Administrator and Part Casey as chairman of the Motion Picture Producers' Association. They resulted in a tentative agreement in January, 1942, providing for a general ten percent wage increase for employees in all classifications. That increase was paid by the studios during 1942. Paragraph 6 of the agreement also provided:
'6. Shifts The Work Day shall be divided into four shifts of six hours each. First shift may start between six a. m. and eight a. m. Men called to start work two or more hours after the start of the third regular shift shall be considered as performing work on the fourth (graveyard) shift.
'The first three shifts shall be paid for at straight time; the fourth (graveyard) shift at straight time plus a bonus of 1/2 time.'
Paragraph 53 of the agreement provided for the payment of wage increases retroactive to July 1, 1941.
The bonus specified in paragraph 6 was retroactively payable only to employees whose shifts began two or more hours after the starting time of the third shift. Since defendant's third shift began at eight P.M., plaintiffs, who came to work at nine P. M. during that period, were not 'considered as performing work on the fourth (graveyard) shift,' and consequently were not entitled to the bonus.
Following the circulation of the tentative agreement the parties continued negotiations for a final agreement. From time to time as modifications in the tentative agreement were agreed upon, they were announced in bulletins issued by the producers' representatives. During the negotiations the parties agreed to establish a standard starting time for the graveyard shift to replace the variable time dependent on the starting time of the third shift then provided by paragraph 6 of the tentative agreement. The new starting time was announced by a bulletin issued over Pelton's signature:
'August 24, 1942
'Notice To All Studios
'Subject: Standard Starting Time of 'Groveyard Shift.'
'Re: Wage Scales and Working Conditions for the following I.A.T.S.E. Unions.
'
'
'
'
'
'Effective August 30, 1942, the first paragraph of Section 6 in the above references will be replaced and superseded by the following:
'F. E. Pelton'
Workers reporting to work at nine P. M. were thus newly classified as graveyard shift workers, and the effective date of the change was August 30, 1942. There was no reference to paragraph 53 providing that wage increases such as the graveyard shift bonus were to be paid retroactively to July 1, 1941.
The tentative agreement and the modifying bulletins were sent to the printer for the printing of the formal contract. The printed copies of the formal contract were delivered to the union in January 1943, and were signed by the business agents of the locals. They were thereupon delivered to Pelton's office for the approval and signature of the representatives of the studios. Paragraph 6 of the formal contract provided a nine P. M. starting hour for the graveyard shift but did not provide an August 30, 1942, effective date as provided in the bulletin of August 24th. Paragraph 57 of the contract contained the same provision for retroactive payment of the wage increases as paragraph 53 of the tentative agreement.
Before the agreement was signed by the studio representatives or delivered to the union, Pelton dictated the following letter for signature by the business agents of the locals, including A. J. Moran, business agent of Local 728:
'Hollywood, California
'February 1, 1943
'Mr. Pat Casey, Chairman
'Producers' Committee
'5504 Hollywood Boulevard
'Hollywood, California
'Dear Mr. Casey:
'Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3 of the wage agreements dated February 15, 1942, between the various Motion Picture Producers whom you represent, and the undersigned, the effective dates of the 'working conditions' in such wage agreements shall be subject to the following bulletins issued by your office:
Sometime between February 5 and February 8, 1943, Moran went to Pelton's office to get his union's copies of the formal contract and received them after signing certain copies of the contract and the letter set forth above.
Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to retroactive compensation from July 1, 1941 for work performed on the nine P. M. shift from that date under the terms of the formal contract. Defendant agrees that they are entitled to the bonus provided in paragraph 6 for all days worked after the August 30, 1942 effective date but contends that they are not entitled to the bonus for days worked beginning at nine P.M. before that date for the reason that they wre not 'considered as performing work on the fourth (graveyard) shift' until nine P. M. became the starting time of that shift on August 30th. In defendant's view, the formal agreement and the letter of February 1, 1943 incorporating the effective date of the August 24th bulletin therein must be read and construed together as a single integrated contract under Civil Code, section 1642. 1 It is urged that the contract and the letter construed together provide for bonus payments to employees starting work at nine P.M. or later after August 30, 1942, and that before that date the bonus payments are payable only to employees starting work two or more hours after the start of the regular third shift, in this case, at ten P. M. or later.
The trial court refused to consider the letter or the bulletin of August 24th in its interpretation of the agreement because it concluded 'that said letter and the bulletin to which it referred purported to change, contradict, modify, vary and alter the provisions of the formal collective bargaining agreement above mentioned with respect to retroactive pay,' and that 'said letter was not a part of the formal collective bargaining agreement but was extrinsic and collateral thereto.' Relying solely on paragraphs 6 and 57 of the formal contract, the trial court ordered judgment for plaintiffs for bonus payments retroactively to July 1, 1941.
The conclusion of the trial court that the letter and the bulletin were not part of the formal contract is clearly contrary to the undisputed evidence before it. That evidence demonstrates conclusively that the formal contract and the letter of February 1st were executed and delivered at the same time. Th...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Hope Nat. Med. Center v. Genentech
...To prove the meaning of a contract, "evidence of the negotiations of the parties ... [is] admissible." (See Mayers v. Loew's, Inc. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 822, 829, 221 P.2d 26.) In harmony with this rule, City of Hope put on evidence of the correspondence between the parties and the negotiations ......
-
Holguin v. Dish Network LLC
...together as one contract [citations].’ ” ( Symonds v. Sherman (1933) 219 Cal. 249, 253, 26 P.2d 293; see also Mayers v. Loew's, Inc. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 822, 827, 221 P.2d 26 [“ ‘Where two or more written instruments are executed contemporaneously, with reference to the other, for the purpose ......
-
Holguin v. Dish Network LLC
...together as one contract [citations].’ ” (Symonds v. Sherman (1933) 219 Cal. 249, 253, 26 P.2d 293 ; see Mayers v. Loew's, Inc. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 822, 827, 221 P.2d 26 [“ ‘Where two or more written instruments are executed contemporaneously, with reference to the other, for the purpose of at......
-
Boyd v. Oscar Fisher Co.
...several documents concerning the same subject and made as part of the same transaction (Civ.Code, § 1642; Mayers v. Loew's, Inc. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 822, 827, 221 P.2d 26) even though the documents were not executed contemporaneously (Berg Metals Corp. v. Wilson (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 559, 567,......