Petermann v. International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 396

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: FOX
• Citation: 174 Cal.App.2d 184,344 P.2d 25
• Parties: , 44 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2968, 38 Lab.Cas. P 65,861, 1 IER Cases 5 Peter E. PETERMANN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 396; Frank J. Matula, Jr., Secretary-Treasurer of Local #396, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 23713.
• Decision Date: 30 September 1959

Page 25

344 P.2d 25 174 Cal.App.2d 184, 44 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2968, 38 Lab.Cas. P 65,861, 1 IER Cases 5 Peter E. PETERMANN, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 396; Frank J. Matula, Jr., Secretary-Treasurer of Local #396, Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 23713. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California. Sept. 30, 1959.

Page 26

[174 Cal.App.2d 186] Findlay A. Carter, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Stevenson, Hackler & Ansel, John C. Stevenson, Los Angeles, for respondents.

[174 Cal.App.2d 187] FOX, Presiding Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendants after their motions for judgment on the pleadings were granted.

The complaint in this case consists of two causes of action. The first cause of action seeks declaratory relief adjudging that plaintiff was wrongfully discharged by the defendants (his employer) and seeks accured salary since his discharge. Plaintiff, in effect, alleges that he was employed by the defendant union ¹ as a business agent. The defendant Matula, acting for the union as its secretary-treasurer, did the actual hiring and specified the duration to be as long as plaintiff's work was satisfactory. Thereafter, plaintiff was subpoenaed to testify before the Assembly Interim Committee on Governmental Efficiency and Economy of the California Legislature. Plaintiff alleges that Matula instructed him to make certain false and untrue statements in the testimony he was to give before the above committee. Plaintiff, however, gave correct and truthful answers to all questions asked of him. The following day he was discharged by Matula. Plaintiff assigns as the reason for his discharge his failure to commit perjury.

The second cause of action pertains to the issuance by the defendant union of an 'Honorable Withdrawal Card' to plaintiff. It is plaintiff's contention that the issuance of the withdrawal card was arbitrary and done with the intent to further injure him.

Defendants' demurrer to plaintiff's second amended complaint was overruled and their motion to strike denied. Thereafter, at the time of trial, defendants made a motion which was granted, after argument, for a judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff appeals.

On an appeal from a judgment for defendants on the pleadings, 'the case is reviewed * * * the same as would be a judgment of dismissal entered following the sustaining of a general demurrer, and the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint must be taken as true, and so taken the question is whether a cause of action has been stated. (Citations.)' Gill v. Curtis Publishing Co., 38 Cal.2d 273, 275, 239 P.2d 630, 631. The sufficiency of the complaint is to be determined upon the same principles as though it

Page 27

had been attacked by a general demurrer. Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 26 Cal.2d 149, 151, 157 P.2d 1.

[174 Cal.App.2d 188] An examination of plaintiff's first cause of action discloses that he is predicating his right to redress upon an employment contract which does not contain any fixed period of duration. Generally, such a relationship is terminable at the will of either party (Labor Code, § 2922) for any reason whatsoever. Union Labor Hospital Ass'n v. Vance Redwood Lbr. Co., 158 Cal. 551, 554, 112 P. 886, 33 L.R.A.,N.S., 1034; De Gonia v. Building Material and Dump Truck Drivers Local Union 420, 155 Cal.App.2d 573, 583-584, 318 P.2d 486. However, the right to discharge an employee under such a contract may be limited by statute (see Elections Code, § 695; Kouff v. Bethlehem-Alameda Shipyard, 90 Cal.App.2d 322, 202 P.2d 1059) or by considerations of public policy.

'The term 'public policy' is inherently not subject to precise definition. In Maryland Casualty Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 71 Cal.App. 492, at page 497, 236 P. 210 [at page] 212, the court stated: 'The question, what is public policy in a given case, is as broad as the question of what is fraud.' Also in Noble v. City of Palo Alto, 89 Cal.App. 47, at pages 50-51, 264 P. 529, at page 530, the court said: 'Public policy is a vague expression, and few cases can arise in which its application may not be disputed. Mr. Story, in his work on Contracts (section 546), says: 'It has never been defined by the courts, but has been left loose and free of definition in the same manner as fraud.' By 'public policy' is intended that principle of law which holds that no citizen can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good * * *.'' Safeway Stores v. Retail Clerks International Ass'n, 41 Cal.2d 567, 575, 261 P.2d 721, 726. (Emphasis added.)

In 72 C.J.S. Policy, at page 212, it is stated that public policy 'is the principles under which freedom of contract or private dealing is restricted by law for the good of the community. Another statement, sometimes referred to as a definition, is that whatever contravenes good morals or any established interests of society is against public policy.'

The commission of perjury is unlawful (Pen.Code, § 118). It is also a crime to solicit the commission of perjury. Pen.Code, § 653f. The presence...