Oil Workers Intern. Union, CIO v. Superior Court, Contra Costa County
| Decision Date | 18 April 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 14088,14088 |
| Citation | 103 Cal.App.2d 512,230 P.2d 71 |
| Parties | OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY et al. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Edises, Treuhaft & Condon and Bertram Edises, all of Oakland, Robert L. Condon, Martinez, Lindsay P. Walden, Denver, Colo., A. L. Wirin, Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, for petitioners.
Arthur J. Goldberg, Gen. Counsel, Thomas E. Harris, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., amicus curiae, (Jay A. Darwin, Daniel Fogel, San Francisco, of counsel), for the Congress of Industrial Organizations, as amicus curiae, in support of petitioning labor organizations.
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison and Robert E. Burns, all of San Francisco, Tinning & DeLap, Archibald B. Tinning, and Robert Eshleman, all of Martinez, for respondent Union Oil Co. of California.
This is a proceeding to review an order in which the superior court found that the petitioners herein had violated a temporary restraining order, and adjudge them in contempt of court therefor.
The petitioners are Oil Workers International Union, CIO, an unincorporated association (hereinafter called the International Union); Local 326 of Oil Workers International Union, CIO, an unincorporated association (hereinafter called the Local Union); J. P. Kenny, individually and as first vice-president of the Local Union; Frank M. Casey, individually and as financial secretary and business agent of the Local Union; Herman Phillips, Jr., Frank M. Silva, Harris E. Lakeman, Montell H. Bullock, Curtis C. Page, and Walter V. Holt.
The International and the Local Unions, Kenny, and Casey are defendants in the action in which the order under review was issued, an action brought by Union Oil Company of California to enjoin the commission of certain acts.
The verified complaint in that action, filed September 13, 1948, alleged that plaintiff operates at Oleum, Contra Costa County, a petroleum refinery, with two principal gates opposite each other and on either side of U. S. Highway No. 40 () and a number of subsidiary entrances the refinery is also located on the main line of the Southern Pacific railroad, with four railroad entrances for the delivery of materials and shipment of products on spur tracks; it is necessary, in the conduct of the business, for plaintiff, the railway company and persons doing business with plaintiff to operate motor vehicles and trains into and out of the refinery; that the International and the Local Unions represent persons employed in the production and processing of petroleum and petroleum products, including persons so employed by plaintiff; that defendant J. Elro Brown is an officer, agent and representative of the International and other named defendants are officers, agents and representatives of the Local Union; that on September 4, 1948, the unions called a strike at the refinery; that ever since then defendants and their agents, members and representatives have and now are picketing the refinery by standing and patrolling in front of the several entrances thereto,--at the main entrance from 10 to 80 pickets and at another entrance from 4 to 20 pickets, and from 2 to 13 at the railroad entrance whenever it appeared that railroad cars were likely to enter or leave; at times as many as 100 pickets congregated at the main and Tormey entrances and by their number intimidated from entering or leaving the refinery, officers, agents, and employees of plaintiff, and other persons desiring to enter or leave; when persons or vehicles attempted to enter or leave by the main or the Tormey entrance, the pickets have so placed themselves in front of the entrance as to physically obstruct the same and prevent such persons and vehicles from utilizing the entrance; on September 4, 1948, defendants caused their pickets to enter the refinery premises and place themselves upon the railtrack leading thereto in such manner as to obstruct the railroad entrance thereto and, despite plaintiff's demand to remove themselves, prevented the Southern Pacific Company from operating a train into the premises and caused the train to leave without picking up and removing ten tank cars of petroleum products being shipped by plaintiff and thereby prevented plaintiff and ever since have prevented plaintiff from shipping said petroleum products; since September 4, 1948, for the purpose of unlawfully forcing plaintiff to accede to their demands, they have engaged in an unlawful scheme and conspiracy to molest, threaten, intimidate and coerce plaintiff, its agents, officers and employees, and the employees of Southern Pacific Company or other persons doing business with plaintiff, for the purpose of preventing the operation of the refinery, and of preventing plaintiff's officers, agents and employees working thereat and of preventing Southern Pacific Company and others from continuing to do business with plaintiff, and in pursuance of said purposes have obstructed the entrances and in the manner described have intimidated persons desiring to enter or leave the refinery; defendants threaten to and unless restrained by order of the court will continue to so obstruct the entrances and intimidate persons desiring to enter or leave, who will be prevented by intimidation and physical blockade from entering or leaving; and plaintiff will thereby be irreparably damaged and prevented from carrying on its said business, from bringing materials to the refinery, and from shipping the products from the refinery; and prayed for judgment enjoining defendants and persons acting under them from carrying on said scheme and conspiracy and from engaging in or continuing any of the acts described, and for a temporary restraining order and an injunction pendente lite.
On September 13, 1948, in the action in the superior court, that court issued an order requiring the defendants therein to show cause why they should not be enjoined and restrained, during the pendency of the action, from directly or indirectly committing any of the following acts:
'1. Intimidating, obstructing, molesting, harrassing or threatening bodily harm or injury to plaintiff's officers, agents, employees, customers, or any other persons having business with plaintiff, or attempting to serve plaintiff, or the driver or operator of any vehicle, engine or train while entering, attempting to enter, leaving or attempting to leave plaintiff's refinery at Oleum, Contra Costa County, California.
'2. Obstructing in any manner any entrance of plaintiff's said refinery at Oleum, Contra Costa County, California, including any entrance used for ingress and egress to and from said refinery by pedestrians, motor vehicles, or railroad engines and trains.
'3. Congregating, gathering, massing, demonstrating, marching, picketing, standing, sitting, loitering, walking or stationing or maintaining any pickets or other persons at or near or in front of or within two hundred yards of any entrance of plaintiff's refinery at Oleum, Contra Costa County, California, except as hereinafter provided.
'4. Maintaining, stationing, or placing more than four pickets or other persons at any one time at or about any entrance to plaintiff's refinery at Oleum, Contra Costa County, California.
'5. Picketing, or maintaining or stationing any pickets on the property of plaintiff at Oleum, California, and from marching or loitering on said property.
'6. Interfering with the movement of any automobile, trucks, railroad engines or trains, or other vehicles and from standing, lying, or gathering in the pathway of any automobiles, trucks, railroad trains or other vehicles which enter or leave or attempt to enter or leave or are about to enter or leave plaintiff's refinery at Oleum, Contra Costa County, California.
Immediately following the order to show cause, and as a part of it, the superior court further 'Ordered that pending the hearing and determination of the foregoing Order to Show Cause the defendants and each of them, their agents, servants, representatives, officers, employees, members and pickets and each of them be and they are hereby restrained and enjoined from committing or performing directly or indirectly or by any means whatsoever any of the foregoing acts.'
Pursuant to stipulations, the court made and entered orders, from time to time, continuing the hearing on the order to show cause and continuing in full force and effect the temporary restraining order.
The court issued orders to show cause (filed October 1 and 14, 1948) based upon affidavits filed by J. A. Grant, L. J. Briggs, Robert C. Diehl, J. H. Davison, Donald Ritchey, and two by G. H. Hemmen. Answering affidavits were filed by persons charged in the affidavits and served with the orders to show cause. Trial upon the issues thus presented commenced November 26 and concluded December 31, 1948.
Upon the conclusion of the taking of evidence, counsel for the alleged contemnors moved for a continuance of the hearing, under section 595 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and filed his affidavit in support of the motion. Thereupon the court directed counsel for the alleged contemnors to proceed with his oral argument, to which counsel objected that there was not sufficient time to prepare for or present oral argument. The motion was thereupon denied by the court and the matter taken under submission.
On January 12, 1949, the court entered its order finding that the petitioners had violated the temporary restraining order, and adjudging them in contempt of court because of such violations.
Petitioners challenge the validity of the judgments of contempt upon six separate grounds, each of which, they urge, requires...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cahan
...to use illegally obtained evidence, see, Munson v. Munson, 27 Cal.2d 659, 664, 166 P.2d 268; Oil Workers International Union v. Superior Court, 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 579-580, 230 P.2d 71; cf., Herrscher v. State Bar, 4 Cal.2d 399, 412, 49 P.2d 832, and that as applied in the federal courts, i......
-
Employment Development Dept. v. U.S. Postal Service
...The word "includes" is not ordinarily a word of limitation but rather of enlargement. Oil Workers International Union v. Superior Court, 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 230 P.2d 71, 105-06 (1951). Accord, People v. Western Air Lines, Inc., 42 Cal.2d 621, 268 P.2d 723, 733 (1954); Patricia J. v. Rio Lin......
-
United Factory Outlet, Inc. v. Jay's Stores, Inc.
...Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards Assn., 42 Wash.2d 648, 653--654, 257 P.2d 629. Cf. Oil Workers Intl. Union, C.I.O. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 568--572, 230 P.2d 71 (involving criminal contempt); State v. Local Union 5760, United Steelworkers of Am., 172 O......
-
Inglis v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 12
...Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 37 Cal.2d 760, 235 P.2d 607; Oil Workers International Union v. Superior Court, 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 230 P.2d 71.) However, section 388 is limited in scope, is purely procedural, and does no more than eliminate the necessit......
-
Drunk driving offenses
...On the one hand, two cases seem to point that way. In Oil Workers International Union v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 512, the court held that union pickets could be prosecuted for contempt in state court only because their conduct did not involve negligent op......
-
Table of cases
...§6:21.8 Ohio v. Robinette (1996) 519 U.S. 33, §7:11.2 Oil Workers International Union v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 512, §1:54.2 Old Chief v. U.S. (1997) 519 U.S. 172, §9:103.6 Olney v. Municipal Court (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 455, §§3:22.1, 3:55.3, 3:56.1 Olso......