Pacific Fire Rating Bureau v. Bookbinders' and Bindery Women's Union No. 31-125, 15124

• Decision Date: 29 December 1952
• Docket Number: No. 15124,15124
• Citation: 115 Cal.App.2d 111,251 P.2d 694
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PACIFIC FIRE RATING BUREAU v. BOOKBINDERS' AND BINDERY WOMEN'S UNION NO. 31-125. Civ.

Page 694

251 P.2d 694

115 Cal.App.2d 111

PACIFIC FIRE RATING BUREAU v. BOOKBINDERS' AND BINDERY WOMEN'S UNION NO. 31-125.

Civ. No. 15124.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Dec. 29, 1952.

Long & Levit, Bert W. Levit and David C. Bogert, San Francisco, for appellant.

Charles P. Scully, San Francisco, for respondent.

GOODELL, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order confirming an award in an arbitration.

Appellant is a rating organization licensed by the Insurance Commissioner, with its offices in San Francisco where it has a plant for compiling its printed materials. Respondent union had contracts with two San Francisco employer organizations, i. e., the Employing Printers' Association and the Printing Trades Conference, dealing with wage scales and arbitration. The Bureau is not a member of either organization and did not sign either of these contracts, but from time to time when in need of hands in its plant it employed the union's members.

The contracts between the union and the two employer organizations provided (sec. 9) that 'The Employers * * * agree not to arbitrarily operate with a nonunion crew any department of their shops now unionized * * *.' and (sec. 10) that 'The Employers will employ in their binding departments none but members of the Union to do any mechanical work that comes under the jurisdiction of said Union.'

A controversy arose between the Bureau and the Union which they agreed to arbitrate.

The Bureau's contentions at the arbitration were (1) that it was not, and never had been, a party to the agreements and was not bound by them; (2) that it had not violated the closed-shop provisions, and (3) that in any event such provisions contravened the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq. and were therefore illegal and not binding on the Bureau.

The arbitrator held that notwithstanding the Bureau was not a member of either employer organization it was bound by the agreements and that it had violated the closed-shop provisions thereof. He declined to rule upon the third question, that of illegality. Indeed, from the outset he refused to recognize that question as a subject for arbitration, or within the scope of the submission. Early in the hearing he said: 'Because I think it is very essential in arbitrations, even before we proceed I should like to see if the parties are in agreement at least as to what issues the arbitrator is to determine. Obviously the parties cannot agree as to the result of the issues; otherwise there would be no arbitration. That is the reason that earlier in this discussion I was looking at the language of the first 'whereas' and was wondering what the term 'including' meant. It would indicate that possibly there were some other difference.' It is apparent that the arbitrator had before him that 'submission agreement' (quoted later). He then said: 'If there is a question of the illegality of the contract being raised, there is a great doubt in my mind that that matter can be settled by arbitration. If you will read a very recent case by our Supreme Court, it was held that the question of the legality or illegality of a contract is a legal point to be determined by the courts and not by arbitration.' The case to which he referred is Loving & Evans v. Vlick, 33 Cal.2d 603, 204 P.2d 23.

The Bureau's application for an order vacating the award was based on the grounds that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct in refusing to hear evidence and argument that the agreement sought to be enforced by the Union was illegal in that it contained close-shop provisions in violation of the Taft-Hartley Act, in refusing to rule thereon, and that he had exceeded his powers in making the award since the agreement was illegal and invalid in that it contained such closed-shop provisions, and that such 'provisions were specifically enforced by said award'. Appellant did not challenge the arbitrator's holding that the Bureau was subject to the contracts and bound by their closed-shop provisions (although not a signatory), or his holding that it had violated such provisions--the issues defined by the submission agreement--but confined its attack to the claimed illegality of those provisions--a matter not mentioned in the submission agreement.

In denying appellant's application the court announced that the award was 'confirmed on the following propositions: 1. An agreement to submit the question of 'illegality' does not appear. 2. Whether or not a contract violates the Taft-Hartley Act is not a subject for private ligitation but is a matter for the National Labor Relations Board to take up as an unfair labor practice if the Board in its discretion decides to act. (Citations.) The Court in confirming the award does not enforce an illegal contract. It affirms the decision that the parties are bound by the contract which, if it produces unfair labor practices can be brought to the attention of the N.L.R.B.'

Take the first point: 'An agreement to submit the question of 'illegality' does not appear'. The 'submission agreement' signed by the Union and the Bureau recites that differences have arisen between the Union and the Bureau concerning the application...