Seven Up Bottling Co. of Los Angeles v. Grocery DriversUnion Local 848

• Decision Date: 16 January 1958
• Citation: 49 Cal.2d 625,320 P.2d 492
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: SEVEN UP BOTTLING COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES, Incorporated, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GROCERY DRIVERS UNION LOCAL 848, Etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants. L. A. 23627.

Page 492

320 P.2d 492

49 Cal.2d 625

SEVEN UP BOTTLING COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES, Incorporated, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GROCERY DRIVERS UNION LOCAL 848, Etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

L. A. 23627.

Supreme Court of California.

Jan. 16, 1958.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1958.

John C. Stevenson, Los Angeles, Clarence E. Todd, San Francisco, and Charles K. Hackler, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Thomas P. Menzies, Harold L. Watt, Hill, Farrer & Burrill and Carl M. Gould, Los Angeles, for respondent.

SHENK, Justice.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment enjoining them from picketing and other interference with the plaintiff's business in violation of the Jurisdictional Strike Act (Labor Code, §§ 1115-1120), and awarding plaintiff $4,000 in damages for tortious conduct on the part of the defendants.

The plaintiff is a California corporation engaged in the production, bottling, and distribution of beverages. In March 1949 it entered into a collective bargaining agreement concerning the wages, hours, and working conditions of its nonsupervisory employees with the Seven Up Employees' Association. Beginning in June 1949 the defendants engaged in activities designed to compel the plaintiff to recognize the defendants as the exclusive bargaining representatives of the plaintiff's employees. To enforce their demand for recognition, the defendants began peaceful picketing of retail stores which sold the plaintiff's products. Picket signs announced that the plaintiff's products were made by workers who were not members of the defendant union, and that the plaintiff was on the defendants' 'We Do Not Patronize List.' Truck drivers of suppliers refused to cross the picket lines to make deliveries, thus compelling some retail stores to cease handling the plaintiff's products. As a result of this activity on the part of the defendants there was a falling off in the plaintiff's business on account of which damages were sought and awarded.

Section 1118 of the Labor Code defines a jurisdictional strike as a 'concerted interference with an employer's operation or business, arising out of a controversy between two or more labor organizations as to which of them has or should have the exclusive right to bargain collectively with an employer * * * (or) as to which of them has or should have the exclusive right to have its members perform work for an employer.' Section 1115 declares that a 'jurisdictional strike as herein defined is hereby declared to be against the public policy of the State of California and is hereby declared to be unlawful.' Section 1116 provides that any person injured by the violation of the foregoing and other sections 'shall be entitled to injunctive relief therefrom in a proper case, and to recover any damages resulting therefrom in any court of competent jurisdiction.'

On an earlier appeal in this case the judgment for the defendants was reversed. It was there contended by the defendants that the Jurisdictional Strike Act was unconstitutional in that it constituted an invasion of the right of freedom of speech. It was held by this court that in its application to the facts alleged the act was constitutional. Seven Up Bottling Co. of Los Angeles v. Grocery Drivers Union, 40 Cal.2d 368, 254 P.2d 544, 547, 33 A.L.R.2d 327. It was held further that the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq.) has no application as 'There is no allegation showing that plaintiff was engaged in a business affecting interstate commerce * * *.'

Following the reversal, the defendants sought to amend their answer to allege that the plaintiff was engaged in interstate commerce and that exclusive jurisdiction over the conduct alleged was in the National Labor Relations Board. Leave to amend was denied on the ground that even though the plaintiff's business affected interstate commerce the state court could exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the National Board.

In Garmon v. San Diego Building Trades Council, Cal., 320 P.2d 473, it was held that in labor disputes which involve business enterprises engaged in interstate commerce the power to grant equitable relief by way of injunction is beyond the jurisdiction of state courts. See also San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 353 U.S. 26, 77 S.Ct. 607, 1 L.Ed.2d 618; Amalgamated Meat Cutters, etc., v. Fairlawn Meats, 353 U.S. 20, 77 S.Ct. 604, 1 L.Ed.2d 613; Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 598, 1 L.Ed.2d 601.

It was further held by this court in the Garmon case that...