Petition of Laufman

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: KINGSLEY; BURKE, P. J., and JEFFERSON
• Citation: Petition of Laufman, 29 Cal.Rptr. 829, 215 Cal.App.2d 87 (Cal. App. 1963)
• Decision Date: 12 April 1963
• Docket Number: HALL-MACK
• Parties: , 94 A.L.R.2d 1068 Petition of Louis L. LAUFMAN, Individually and in a representative capacity for and on behalf of Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers & Helpers of America Union, Local 67, etc. Louis L. LAUFMAN, in a representative capacity for and on behalf of Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers & Helpers of America Union Local 67, Respondent, v.COMPANY, Appellant. Civ. 26699.

Page 829

29 Cal.Rptr. 829

215 Cal.App.2d 87, 94 A.L.R.2d 1068

Petition of Louis L. LAUFMAN, Individually and in a representative capacity for and on behalf of Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers & Helpers of America Union, Local 67, etc Louis L. LAUFMAN, in a representative capacity for and on behalf of Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers & Helpers of America Union Local 67, Respondent, v. HALL-MACK COMPANY, Appellant.

Civ. 26699.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

April 12, 1963.

Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Carl M. Gould, and Stanley E. Tobin, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Richman, Garrett & Ansell and Herbert M. Ansell, Los Angeles, for respondent.

KINGSLEY, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court, made pursuant to section 1281.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, granting a request of a labor union for arbitration of a dispute concerning the discharge of two employees. Contending that the matter thus submitted to arbitration was not arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, the employer has appealed.

Under California procedure an order directing arbitration, not being one of those orders listed in section 1294 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not appealable. (Falloon v. Caledonian Ins. Co. (1958), 161 Cal.App.2d 522, 327 P.2d 18; Corbett v. Petroleum Maintenance Co. (1953), 119 Cal.App.2d 21, 258 P.2d 1077; Jardine-Matheson Co., Ltd. v. Facific Orient Co. (1929), 100 Cal.App. 572, 280 P. 697.) While these cases were decided under section 1293 of the code prior to the 1961 revision of the arbitration law, they apply equally to section 1294 which, in the revision, replaced the older section. As the court said in the Jardine case, at pages 575-576, 280 P. at page 698:

'* * * the fact that the Legislature saw fit to specify in one code section the different orders and judgment from which appeals may be taken clearly indicates, in our opinion, an intention to restrict the appeals in such proceeding to orders and judgment therein specified, and the obvious reason for not including among such appealable orders the one which directs the parties to proceed with the arbitration was that if at the very threshold of the proceeding the defaulting party could appeal and thereby indefinitely delay the matter of arbitration, the object of the law and the purpose of the written agreement of the parties would be entirely defeated.'

However, appellant argues that the appealability of the order is to be determined by section 301 of the National Labor Relations Act and not by section 1294 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both sides concede that the employer is in interstate commerce and that the merits of the ultimate issue are to be decided according to substantive rights based on section 301; and it is settled that, had the order to arbitrate been made by a federal court in a proceeding brought directly under section 301, the order would have been appealable. (Good-all-Sanford v. United Textile Workers (1957), 353 U.S. 550, 77 S.Ct. 920, 1 L.Ed.2d 1031.)

In enforcing a federally created right, the state court must follow federal law. (Testa v. Katt (1947), 330 U.S. 386, 67 S.Ct. 810, 91 L.Ed. 976; Mondou v. New York, N. H. and H. R. Co. (1911), 223 U.S. 1, 32 S.Ct. 169, 56 L.Ed. 327.) But, in enforcing such a federal right, the state court may follow its own rules of procedures, unless those rules so subvert the federal right as to make it meaningless. (Central Vermont Railroad Co. v. White (1915), 238 U.S. 507, 35 S.Ct. 865, 59 L.Ed. 1433.)

The rule of federal law, as set forth in the landmark cases of United Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co. (1960), 363 U.S. 564, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403; United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp. (1960), 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424; United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co. (1960), 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1406, is to encourage, rather than to discourage, the use of arbitration processes in matters relating to labor-management relations. We think that the policy underlying our state procedure, as set forth in the quotation from the Jardine case, supra (100 Cal.App. 572, 574, 280 P. 697) carries out...