Oppenheimer v. General Cable Corp.
| Decision Date | 20 July 1956 |
| Citation | 300 P.2d 151,143 Cal.App.2d 293 |
| Parties | John G. OPPENHEIMER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION, C. M. Canfield, W. A. Volle, V. J. Gunderson, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 21791. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
John G. Oppenheimer, in pro. per.
Lawler, Felix & Hall, Reed A. Stout, Los Angeles, for respondents.
Plaintiff brought this action 'for declaratory relief, or, in the alternative, for damages for breach of contract.' He filed an amendment to his complaint. (These two documents will be treated as the complaint.) The general demurrer of the individual defendants was sustained. The general demurrer of the defendant corporation was overruled. The special demurrers of all defendants were sustained. Plaintiff was granted leave to amend within 20 days. He elected to stand on his complaint. Upon its being dismissed, he appealed from the judgment.
After alleging the corporate organization of the General Cable Corporation, plaintiff states that Canfield, Volle and Gunderson were agents of defendant corporation and acted for and on behalf of it at all times in their respective official capacities. He asserts he is a permanent employee of defendant corporation at Los Angeles; that he has been working under and pursuant to a written contract of employment negotiated between said defendant and a labor union acting as a collective bargaining agent; that under the provisions of such written contract defendant corporation agreed to recognize the principle of seniority in all cases of layoffs, transfers, promotions and filling of vacancies provided the employee is capable of performing the work available; that new employees did not have seniority rights for a probationary period of thirty days but that upon the completion of thirty days' service such employees accumulated seniority privileges from date of hiring; that said contract provides that all vacancies 'shall be filled by transfer or promotion of employees within the respective units;' that employees who desire any such job may, within the time specified in a posted notice, file an application therefor; and that employees can be discharged only for just cause.
Plaintiff alleged he was hired by defendants on October 28, 1955, and is fully capable of performing the duties of the position he has been occupying. He further alleged that on November 30, 1955, defendants, in writing, declared a vacancy in the position of Raw Materials and Cost Control Clerk, and invited applications of their employees therefor within three days; that on the next day he made application for said position; that on December 5, 1955, a newly hired employee was brought in by defendants to 'break in' on plaintiff's job, and plaintiff was requested to teach him the work; that on December 6th defendants orally notified plaintiff that he was not being considered for the Raw Materials and Cost Control Clerk's position; that they informed plaintiff he could continue to break in the newly hired employee by working with him part of each day for about a week; that plaintiff's present position would then be given to the new employee; and that plaintiff's services would thereupon be terminated. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants 'thus threaten to breach faith and the written contract of employment, in that they are displacing plaintiff in his position, upon his mere bidding upon another position with defendants, as advertised and solicited by them, but without assigning plaintiff thereto, to plaintiff's probable damage in the sum of $5,000.00.' He asserts that 'a dispute has arisen between him and defendants, as to whether or not plaintiff is a permanent employee of defendant corporation, who may be displaced by defendants with a newly hired employee without just or any cause.' He further asserts that defendants 'dispute plaintiff's status as a permanent employee with seniority rights' and 'arbitrarily refuse to accord him his rights of employment, transfer and promotion in accordance with contractual obligations and duties, or at all, and further refuse to pay him his wages since December 13, 1955.' He 'prays for a declaration of rights, duties and obligations of plaintiff and defendants under the terms of the written contract of employment' and 'pursuant to which plaintiff works, damages up to $5,000.00 for any substantial breach by defendants thereof, costs of suit, * * *'
We shall consider first the general demurrer of the individual defendants. Plaintiff states he was working for defendant corporation under the terms of a written contract between the corporation and a labor union. He alleges he was hired by the corporation on October 28, 1955, to fill a position, the nature and title of which are not disclosed; that on December 1, 1955, he applied for a vacant job known as Raw Materials and Cost Control Clerk. However, five days later defendants notified plaintiff without any explanation that he would not be assigned to fill the job for which he had applied, and informed him his services would be terminated. The individual defendants are declared to have been at all times the 'agents, servants, employees and officials of the corporation' and to have 'acted and purported to act for and on behalf of said corporation defendant at all such times in their respective official capacities.' None of the individual defendants is alleged to have been a party to the contract under which plaintiff was employed. Their acts were performed solely as agents and employees of the corporation.
Section 2343, Civil Code, provides: 'One who assumes to act as an agent is responsible to third persons as a principal for his acts in the course of his agency, in any of the following cases, and in no others:
'1. When, with his consent, credit is given to him personally in a transaction;
Plaintiff's complaint alleges no facts bringing the acts of the individuals within the scope of section 2343. Any breach of contract that is alleged in the complaint is that of the corporation and not of its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Tiburon v. Northwestern Pac. R. Co.
...134, 142, 31 Cal.Rptr. 545; Taliaferro v. Taliaferro (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 1, 7--8, 339 P.2d 594; and Oppenheimer v. General Cable Corp. (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 293, 297, 300 P.2d 151.) The Subdivision Map Act declares that the sale or lease of any subdivision or any part thereof is illegal. ......
-
Greenberg v. Hollywood Turf Club
...he or it has no legal interest. (See City of Coronado v. Sexton, 227 Cal.App.2d 444, 451, 38 Cal.Rptr. 827; Oppenheimer v. General Cable Corp., 143 Cal.App.2d 293, 297, 300 P.2d 151.)2 It seems that a more plausible claim might be based upon the theory that the exclusion order prevented pla......
-
Reynolds v. Bement
...Pacific and is not personally liable for nonpayment of wages to a fellow employee. (Civ.Code, § 2343; Oppenheimer v. General Cable Corp. [1956] 143 Cal.App.2d 293, 300 P.2d 151.)" (Oppenheimer v. Robinson, supra, 150 Cal. App.2d at p. 424, 309 P.2d Nevertheless, Reynolds cites Tidewater Mar......
-
Sackett v. Wyatt
...213 Cal.App.2d 509, 518, 28 Cal.Rptr. 795; Hayman v. Shoemake, 203 Cal.App.2d 140, 159, 21 Cal.Rptr. 519; Oppenheimer v. General Cable Corp., 143 Cal.App.2d 293, 297, 300 P.2d 151; see Carranza v. Noroian, 240 Cal.App.2d 481, 483, 49 Cal.Rptr. Moreover, though not specified by the trial jud......