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

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Writing for the Court: SHENK; TRAYNOR; GIBSON, C. J., and CARTER
• Citation: 49 Cal.2d 625,320 P.2d 492
• 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.
• Decision Date: 16 January 1958

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.

[49 Cal.2d 626] 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

Page 493

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.

[49 Cal.2d 627] 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...