McCarroll v. Los Angeles County Dist. Council of Carpenters
| Decision Date | 10 December 1956 |
| Citation | 304 P.2d 781 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 39 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2285, 31 Lab.Cas. P 70,410 Johny E. McCARROLL, Willie J. McCarroll, and Thomas L. Hall, a co-partnership, d/b/a McCarroll & Hall Construction Company, a/k/a McCarroll & Hall, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, an unincorporated association, et al., Defendants and Appellants.* Civ. 21625. |
Arthur Garrett, James M. Nicoson, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Los Angeles, for respondents.
This action was instituted by plaintiffs and respondents (hereinafter referred to as respondents) for specific performance, injunction and damages against defendants and appellants (hereinafter referred to as appellants). By their second amended complaint respondents alleged that appellants had engaged in a course of conduct, and by directions, instructions and orders have engaged in strikes, and have induced employees of employers to engage in the strikes or other concerted refusal to work on materials and to perform services for respondents' General Contractors, the purposes thereof being (1) to compel the General Contractors to withdraw their business relations with respondent and to cease doing business with respondent, (2) that respondent through its membership in the Building Contractors Association of California, Inc., was a party to 'Master Labor Agreement' with appellants and others and that appellants had refused to perform certain obligations under that agreement, and (3) that the conduct alleged was violative of the Cartwright Act of the State of California.
In the court below numerous affidavits were filed, and oral testimony was received, resulting in the issuance of a preliminary injunction, from which order appellants prosecute this appeal.
The first cause of action alleges that respondents and appellants were and are parties to a collective bargaining agreement known as the 'BCA-AF of L Master Labor Agreement.' That the agreement provides that contractors shall have entire freedom of selectivity in hiring, and may discharge any employee for just cause; that contractors shall first call upon a local union having work or area jurisdiction for such men as the contractors may from time to time need and that the local union shall immediately furnish to the contractors the required number of qualified and competent workmen needed by the contractors; that the local union will furnish each such required competent workman or skilled mechanic to the contractors by use of a written referral; that if after forty-eight hours' notice, the local union shall not furnish the workmen requested by the contractor, the contractor may procure workmen from any other source; that if men are so employed the contractor will report to the local union each such workman by name.
That the collective bargaining agreement further recites that contractors may transfer workmen from the jurisdiciton of one local union to the jurisdiction of another local union up to the maximum permitted by the by-laws of the craft involved, but in any event they may transfer up to 10% of their current requirements; that workmen employed by any contractor under the terms of the agreements shall not be removed nor transferred by the union without the prior approval of the contractor.
That the contract also provides that all grievances or disputes arising between the parties over the interpretation or application of the terms of the agreement shall be settled by arbitration and that during the term of the agreement the union shall not 'call, or engage in, sanction, or assist in a strike against, or any slow-down or stoppage of work of the contractors.' That the contract further provides that the union will require its members to perform their services for the contractors when required by the contractor so to do.
That the agreement provides that the employer shall determine the number of employees and classifications required to perform any operation and that the contractors and the unions recognize the necessity of eliminating restrictions on production and that nothing shall be permitted that restricts production or increases the time required to do the work and that no limitation shall be placed upon the amount of work which the employee shall perform, nor shall there be any restriction against labor saving devices.
That the collective bargaining agreement further provides that any provisions in the working rules of the union in conflict with the terms of the agreement between the parties shall be deemed waived.
The complaint further alleges that Section 16(f) 1 and 2 of the by-laws of the defendant Los Angeles County District Council of Carpenters provides:
The complainant then alleges that respondents entered into a contract to do carpentry work in Palmdale, California, and that immediately thereafter, defendant Nukala (a union official) arrived on the job site and informed respondents that they would not be allowed to transfer more than 10% of their employees from the jurisdiction of any other local union. The respondents requested men from defendant Nukala and the men transferred were unqualified and incompetent. Respondents thereupon gave defendant Nukala notice to that effect and after the expiration of 48 hours respondents procured workmen from other sources. That at no time did the number of employees who were transferred from the jurisdiction of other local unions exceed 50% of the current requirements of respondents. Defendant Nukala thereupon placed respondents on the 'out-of-bounds' list, and refused to honor requests from respondents for a work order for specifically named men.
The complaint further alleges that on a subsequent job in Palmdale, California, respondents requested men from defendant Nukala; that the men referred were unqualified and incompetent; that respondents were refused job requests for members of the appellant unions whom respondents desired to have 'cleared' to the job by use of a written referral; that defendant Nukala at all times refused to honor these requests; the respondents sought to transfer 14 regular employees of respondents from Los Angeles to Palmdale; that respondents requested written referrals or work orders for these men; that the 14 men constituted less than 50% of the current requirements of respondents on the job; that defendant Nukala refused to issue written work orders and thereupon called a strike of respondents' employees and shut the job down for the stated reason that respondents were allegedly 'labor contractors'; that approximately two weeks later the strike was called off by defendant Nukala and the dispute submitted to arbitration; that the Arbitration Board ruled that labor contracts are not illegal under the Master Labor Agreement and that respondents were not labor contractors; that respondents suffered substantial damage due to the strike and the refusal to furnish competent workmen, or honor work requests submitted by respondents.
The complaint further alleges that thereafter on other jobs being performed by respondents in other Southern California areas, the local unions furnished incompetent and unqualified workmen, thereby causing damaging delay to respondents; that the local unions refused to honor written referrals or work orders for specifically named men and refused to permit respondents to transfer more than 10% of their employees to the job; that on May 21,...
To continue reading
Request your trial