Thorman v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Emp. and Moving Pictures Mach. Operators of U.S. and Canada
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Writing for the Court | SHENK; TRAYNOR; GIBSON, C. J., and CARTER |
| Citation | 320 P.2d 494,49 Cal.2d 629 |
| Parties | , 41 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2514, 34 Lab.Cas. P 71,215 John F. THORMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURES MACHINE OPERATORS OF the UNITED STATES AND CANADA et al., Defendants and Appellants. S. F. 19325 |
| Decision Date | 16 January 1958 |
Page 494
v.
INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURES MACHINE OPERATORS OF the UNITED STATES AND CANADA et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1958.
Page 495
[49 Cal.2d 631] Tobriner, Lazarus, Brundage & Neyhart, Mathew O. Tobriner and Irving S. Rosenblatt, Jr., San Francisco, for appellants.
Pembroke Gochnauer, San Francisco, for respondent.
SHENK, Justice.
This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment granting to the plaintiff a writ of mandate to compel his admission to membership in the defendant Local 162 of the Moving Picture and projecting Machine Operators of the City and County of San Francisco. Damages in the sum of $1,289.70 and $1,500 attorney fees were also awarded to the plaintiff.
Local 162 is a member of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada. Through contracts with 66 of the 70 motion picture theaters in San Francisco it controlled working conditions for projectionists and machine operators. It limited the number of journeyman members to 112, all of whom were regularly employed, and in addition dispatched machine operators and projectionists for another 175 jobs from the membership of other locals. The plaintiff is an experienced and qualified machine operator, having been engaged in that work since 1942 except for Army service. He is a member of Local B18, a subsidiary of Local 162. Over and above
Page 496
his dues to Local B18, he is required to pay a 'working fee' to Local 162 in the same amount as its journeymen members. However, he is not a member of that union, he lacks the security of employment and seniority possessed by the members thereof, and has no voice as to its organization, its contracts or working conditions imposed by it.Prior to the commencement of this action the plaintiff was regularly dispatched to work by the officials of Local 162. [49 Cal.2d 632] In January 1953 he filed with that local his written application ofr journeymen membership accompanied by one-half of the initiation fee, as required by its constitution. He was notified in writing to take the entrance examination conducted by the local. He passed it, filed a doctor's certificate showing a good physical condition, and appeared at a regular meeting relating to applications for memberships. His application failed to receive a favorable two-thirds vote of the members voting, as required by the local's constitution, and was rejected. The trial court found that the 'plaintiff meets all lawful and reasonable requirements for membership in Local 162; and that plaintiff has performed each and every act heretofore required of him under the constitution and by-laws of Local 162 as a condition precedent to admission to journeymen membership therein, save and except said membership vote.' After the rejection of his application Local 162 dispatched a newly-admitted journeyman to perform the work for which the plaintiff had been regularly employed and the plaintiff has since then been employed intermittently elsewhere.
The plaintiff contends, and rightly so, that a labor organization may not properly maintain a closed union and a closed shop at the same time. James v. Marinship Corp., 25 Cal.2d 721, 155 P.2d 329, 160 A.L.R. 900; Dotson v. International Alliance, etc., Employes, 34 Cal.2d 362, 210 P.2d 5. Furthermore, a reference to the opinion in the case of Garmon v. San Diego Building Trades Council, Cal., 320 P.2d 473, discloses that under present law a state court has jurisdiction to grant both legal and equitable relief in disputes involving labor practices in violation of valid state laws where interstate commerce is not involved but may not grant equitable relief by way of injunction in controversies involving commerce between the states. The plaintiff contends that interstate commerce is not here involved and that the state court therefore has jurisdiction to grant both the equitable and legal relief sought by him.
Whether the cause of action alleged by the plaintiff is one entirely local in character or one also affecting interstate commerce must be determined by an examination of the record in this case. It appears from the amended complaint that the defendant Local 162 asserts 'jurisdiction over moving picture operators and projectionists employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California'; that Local 162 exercises 'a monoply over all employment in the occupation of moving picture machine operators and projectionists[49 Cal.2d 633] employed in the said City and County,' and 'does possess, maintain and enforce closed shop agreements with all the employers who own or operate motion picture theaters covering the employment of moving picture machine operators and projectionists in said City and County'; that the plaintiff 'entered the jurisdiction of Local 162 in February, 1942, when he commenced work as a moving picture machine operator and projectionist in San Francisco'; that 'from June, 1951 until June 7, 1953 plaintiff was regularly employed as a moving picture machine operator and projectionist in the Center Theater in said City and County'; that 'on or about May 22, 1953 defendants notified the plaintiff in writing that one Joseph Ford, a member of Local 162, had requested plaintiff's job at the Center Theater and that said Ford would take over plaintiff's job at said theater on June 7, 1953,' and that 'defendants thereafter dispatched said Ford to said Center Theater on June 7, 1953 in the place and stead of plaintiff and the plaintiff was thereby
Page 497
deprived of his employment and the right to work in his trade in said City and County.'There is nothing in the foregoing to suggest that the employment from which the plaintiff was deprived was one which affected interstate commerce. Likewise, there is nothing in the answer which in any way raised such an issue eithe by denial or in the allegations of affirmative defenses. As the issue was not raised by the pleadings or the proof the trial court made no findings of fact as to whether the plaintiff's employment was or was not one which affected interstate commerce.
The defendants seek now, for the first time on appeal, to show that the plaintiff's employment had a substantial effect on interstate commerce and that thereby the state court was deprived of jurisdiction under the rule announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 598, 1 L.Ed.2d 601; Amalgamated Meat Cutters, Etc., v. Fairlawn meats, 353 U.S. 20, 77 S.Ct. 604, 1 L.Ed.2d 613, and San Diego Building Trades Council v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friends of Juana Briones House v. City of Palo Alto, No. H033275.
...where "such a declaration could not be 'enforced' without a quo warranto action"]; Thorman v. Intl. Alliance etc. Employees (1958) 49 Cal.2d 629, 635, 320 P.2d 494 [requiring plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies would have been an idle act] overruled on another point by Consolidated......
-
Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists
...v. International etc. of Boilermakers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 586, 165 P.2d 903; Thorman v. International Alliance etc. Employees (1958) 49 Cal.2d 629, 320 P.2d 494; Directors Guild of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (1966) 64 Cal.2d 42, 52--54, 48 Cal.Rptr. 710, 409 P.2d 934; Wyatt v. Tahoe Fores......
-
Anton v. San Antonio Community Hosp.
...P. 227; Johnson v. Langdon (1902) 135 Cal. 624, 67 P. 1050) and labor unions (see, e.g., Thorman v. Intl. Alliance etc. Employees (1958) 49 Cal.2d 629, 320 P.2d 494; Cason v. Glass Bottle Blowers Assn. (1951) 37 Cal.2d 134, 231 P.2d 6; Dotson v. Intl. Alliance etc. Employees (1949) 34 Cal.2......
-
Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., S.F. 23625
...155 P.2d 343; Williams v. Int. etc. of Boilermakers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 586, 165 P.2d 903; Thorman v. Int. Alliance etc. Employees (1958) 49 Cal.2d 629, 320 P.2d 494; Directors Guild of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (1966) 64 Cal.2d 42, 48 Cal.Rptr. 710, 409 P.2d Moreover, California courts ......
-
Friends of Juana Briones House v. City of Palo Alto, No. H033275.
...where "such a declaration could not be 'enforced' without a quo warranto action"]; Thorman v. Intl. Alliance etc. Employees (1958) 49 Cal.2d 629, 635, 320 P.2d 494 [requiring plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies would have been an idle act] overruled on another point by Consolidated......
-
Pinsker v. Pacific Coast Society of Orthodontists
...v. International etc. of Boilermakers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 586, 165 P.2d 903; Thorman v. International Alliance etc. Employees (1958) 49 Cal.2d 629, 320 P.2d 494; Directors Guild of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (1966) 64 Cal.2d 42, 52--54, 48 Cal.Rptr. 710, 409 P.2d 934; Wyatt v. Tahoe Fores......
-
Anton v. San Antonio Community Hosp.
...P. 227; Johnson v. Langdon (1902) 135 Cal. 624, 67 P. 1050) and labor unions (see, e.g., Thorman v. Intl. Alliance etc. Employees (1958) 49 Cal.2d 629, 320 P.2d 494; Cason v. Glass Bottle Blowers Assn. (1951) 37 Cal.2d 134, 231 P.2d 6; Dotson v. Intl. Alliance etc. Employees (1949) 34 Cal.2......
-
Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., S.F. 23625
...155 P.2d 343; Williams v. Int. etc. of Boilermakers (1946) 27 Cal.2d 586, 165 P.2d 903; Thorman v. Int. Alliance etc. Employees (1958) 49 Cal.2d 629, 320 P.2d 494; Directors Guild of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (1966) 64 Cal.2d 42, 48 Cal.Rptr. 710, 409 P.2d Moreover, California courts ......