Seven Up Bottling Co. of Los Angeles v. Grocery Drivers Union Local 848
| Decision Date | 10 March 1953 |
| Citation | 40 Cal.2d 368,33 A.L.R.2d 327,254 P.2d 544 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 31 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2530, 33 A.L.R.2d 327, 23 Lab.Cas. P 67,450 SEVEN UP BOTTLING CO. OF LOS ANGELES, Inc. v. GROCERY DRIVERS UNION LOCAL 848 et al. L. A. 21347 |
Thomas P. Menzies, Harold L. Watt, Carl M. Gould and Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Roth & Bahrs, San Francisco, amicicriae on behalf of appellant.
Stevenson & Richman, Los Angeles, Todd & Todd, Clarence Todd, San Francisco, John C. Stevenson and Arthur Garrett, Los Angeles, for respondents.
Charles P. Scully and Tobriner & Lazarus, San Francisco, amici curiae on behalf of respondents.
By its complaint in this action plaintiff sought injunctive relief and damages. Following the issuance of a preliminary injunction, the case was called for trial, at which time defendants' objection to the introduction of any evidence on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action was sustained, and the court gave judgment that plaintiff recover nothing, but continued the preliminary injunction in force pending appeal. This appeal is by plaintiff from that judgment. There is no appeal from the order granting the injunction. There was a dispute as to whether the appeal was from the order sustaining the objection to the evidence, or from the judgment, but that was resolved in favor of the latter appeal. Seven Up etc. Co. v. Grocery etc. Union, 97 Cal.App.2d 623, 218 P.2d 41.
Preliminarily it should be observed that defendants assert that some affidavits presented in connection with the preliminary injunction proceedings should be considered on this appeal as supplementing and explaining the complaint, because they were brought here by plaintiff as a part of the 'clerk's transcript.' The judgment from which the appeal is taken, however, is the same as one of dismissal after demurrer sustained. No appeal was taken by defendants from the order granting the preliminary injunction, or from the judgment and, of course, plaintiff is not objecting to the order. The primary issue presented for decision in the court below and here is the validity of California's Jurisdictional Strike Law, infra. The court, in rendering its judgment, did not purport to pass upon anything but the sufficiency of the complaint. The proceedings on the preliminary injunction were separate from those leading to the judgment. Hence we deem it proper to consider only the complaint, and such cases as Brock v. Fouchy, 76 Cal.App.2d 363, 172 [40 Cal.2d 371] P.2d 945; Mason v. Drug, Inc., 31 Cal.App.2d 697, 88 P.2d 929, and Fox Chicago R. Corp v. Zukor's Dresses, 50 Cal.App.2d 129, 122 P.2d 705, relied upon by defendants, are not controlling.
The complaint is in four counts. Plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the business of bottling and distributing beverages. Most of defendants are labor unions, referred to as teamsters' unions, and are labor organizations existing for the purpose of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, hours and working conditions. Other defendants are officers or agents of the unions. All defendants have acted in 'concert' in the activites stated in the complaint. Plaintiff employs persons in its business who were, in March, 1949, members of Seven Up Emmployees Association, hereafter referred to as the association, an unincorporated labor organization of employees existing for the usual purposes of such groups. The association is not financed, dominated or controlled in any respect by plaintiff. In March, 1949, plaintiff and the association entered into a collective bargaining agreement prescribing the wage rate, working conditions, etc., of plaintiff's employees, which is still in effect. Since June, 1949, defendants have been carrying on concerted 'economic activities' to compel plaintiff to recognize defendant unions as the collective bargaining agents of its employees, and a controversy has arisen between defendants and the association as to which should represent plaintiff's employees. The activities consist of picketing by defendants of retail food markets where plaintiff's products are sold, resulting in the refusal of those markets to but or sell plaintiff's products. Plaintiff has no dispute or controversy with any of its employees with regard to wages, hours or working conditions.
All of the foregoing appears from the first count in the complaint. In addition it is charged that plaintiff has suffered damages of over $2,000 because of defendants' acts and that damage remedy is inadequate. The second, third and fourth counts reallege the first count. Count two asserts that defendants' actions violated the Jurisdictional Strike Law, infra; count three, that defendants, by their activities, are endeavoring to induce plaintiff and its employees to break the 1949 collective bargaining agreement between plaintiff and the association. Court four alleges that the activities of defendants are aimed at compelling plaintiff to recognize defendants as bargaining agents when it would be unlawful for plaintiff to do so, for to compel their employees to belong to a certain union would be in violation of sections 921-923 of the Labor Code and the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq.; and that as a result it has been damaged in the sum of $100,000.
On this appeal plaintiff rests its case on the Jurisdictional Strike Act, infra, public policy, labor Code, sections 921-932 and interference with contract relations.
The Jurisdictional Strike Act was adopted in 1947, Stats. 1947, ch. 1388, by adding sections 1115-1120 to the Labor Code. A jurisdictional strike is defined as 'a concerted refusal to perform work for an employer or any other 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 on behalf of his employees or any of them, or arising out of a controversy between two or more labor organizations as to which of them has or should have the exclusive right to have its members perform work for an employer.' Labor Code, § 1118. A labor organization is 'any organization or any agency or employee representation committee or any local unit thereof in which employees participate, and exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, hours of employment or conditions of work, which labor organization is not found to be financed in whole or in part, interfered with, dominated or controlled by the employer.' Id., § 1117. Nothing in the act shall 'interfere with collective bargaining subject to the prohibitions herein set forth, nor to prohibit any individual voluntarily becoming or remaining a member of a labor organization, or from personally requesting any other individual to join a labor organization.' Id., § 1119. The jurisdictional strike is 'against the public policy' of the state and is 'unlawful,' Id., § 1115, and any person suffering injury from a violation of the act is entitled to injunctive relief and damages. Id., § 1116.
In view of the result reached herein it will be necessary to consider only the jurisdictional strike law. There is no allegation showing that plaintiff was engaged in a business affecting interstate commerce and hence the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, supra, has no application.
It should be clear that the activities of defendants, as alleged, fall within the terms of the act, Jurisdictional Strike Act. Defendants and the association are labor organizations and the latter is not financed, interfered with, dominated or controlled by plaintiff. There has been a concerted interference by defendants with plaintiff's-employer's business. That interference arises out of a controversy between two or more labor organizations defendants and the association as to which of them should have the right to collectively bargain with plaintiff-employer. The latter follows from the allegation in the complaint that there was a collective bargaining agreement between the association and plaintiff, to the former of which plaintiff's employees belong, and that agreement controls the labor relations between them. Since then defendants have been carrying on concerted economic activities (picketing) to compel plaintiff to choose defendants as the exclusive bargaining representatives of its employees, who are working under the agreement. It may reasonably be inferred that the cause of such activity was a dispute between defendants and the association, for their demands to be exclusive agents would necessarily be to replace the association, and it was expressly alleged that: 'Thereby, a controversy has arisen between the defendants and the Seven Up Employees' Association as to which of them has or should have the exclusive right to have its members perform work for the plaintiff in the job classifications above set forth.' We do not take the use of 'thereby' in the above quotation to mean that there was no dispute between defendants and the association before the activities were launched. Implicit in the pleading is the assertion of a dispute between defendants and the association which the former seek to win by their activities. In addition to the above it is alleged that defendants, Grocery Drivers Union Local 848, and the association claim bargaining rights on behalf of plaintiff's employees; that the bargaining agreement with the association was in full force and satisfactory to the association, and that defendants 'knew of the existence of said contract and of the arrangements between plaintiff and its employees thereunder.'
Defendants' contention of unconstitutionality of the act rests on the argument that under the guaranties of freedom of speech and of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garmon v. San Diego Bldg. Trades Council
...of the provisions of the Jurisdictional Strike Act came before this court in Seven Up Bottling Co., etc. v. Grocery Drivers Union, etc., 1953, 40 Cal.2d 368, 254 P.2d 544, 548, 33 A.L.R.2d 327. By the complaint the plaintiff sought an injunction and damages for the alleged unlawful conduct ......
-
Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Emp., Laundry Drivers and Helpers Local No. 88
...right to bargain with an employer or to have its members work for him. Lab.Code, § 1118; Seven Up Bottling Co. v. Grocery, etc., Union, 40 Cal.2d 368, 381, 254 P.2d 544, 33 A.L.R.2d 327. The employer may not only enjoin a jurisdictional strike (Lab.Code § 1116) but refuse to bargain with ei......
-
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee v. Superior Court
...that the prohibition of peaceful picketing violated the constitutional right of free speech. (Seven Up, etc., Co. of Los Angeles v. Grocery, etc., Union (1953) 40 Cal.2d 368, 254 P.2d 544.) Specifically, Seven Up held that the state may constitutionally enjoin picketing for purposes declare......
-
Englund v. Chavez
...for which he was not responsible as well as in the social cost which such a dispute entailed.' (See also Seven-Up etc. Co. v. Grocery etc. Union (1953) 40 Cal.2d 368, 376, 254 P.2d 544.) Thus, the Act provides a remedy for the innocent employer besieged by the conflicting and irreconcilable......