Van Hook v. Southern California Waiters Alliance, Local17

• Decision Date: 20 March 1958
• Citation: 158 Cal.App.2d 556,323 P.2d 212
• Parties: , 34 Lab.Cas. P 71,433 J. W. VAN HOOK, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WAITERS ALLIANCE, LOCAL 17, an unincorporated association, Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 22271.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 212

323 P.2d 212

158 Cal.App.2d 556, 34 Lab.Cas. P 71,433

J. W. VAN HOOK, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WAITERS ALLIANCE, LOCAL 17, an unincorporated association, Defendants and Appellants.

Civ. 22271.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

March 20, 1958.

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1958.

Hearing Denied May 14, 1958.

Alexander H. Schullman, Los Angeles, J. W. Brown, Cincinnati, Ohio, and S. L. Kurland, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Cantillon & Cantillon, Beverly Hills, for respondent.

KINCAID, Justice pro tem.

This action was instituted May 11, 1954. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict for plaintiff and defendant appeals from the resulting judgment in the sum of $109,900 plus interest.

A second amended complaint sets forth causes of action based upon promissory estoppel and upon a contract. No evidence was offered or received under the second cause of action. This complaint alleges in its first cause of action that for many years prior to 1957 plaintiff was a salaried officer of the defendant union; that as such an officer he was required every two years to submit his condidacy to a vote of the membership; that at no time during his employment by defendant was there in effect any provision for the pensioning or retirement of members who had served defendant as salaried officers regardless of the length of time of such service; that prior to November 10, 1947, a restaurateur in Los Angeles County offered plaintiff employment for a term of 10 years at a fixed salary plus a percentage of the net profits; that plaintiff determined to accept this employment as it afforded him more financial security than his position with the union; that the fact of this offer of employment and the fact of plaintiff's intention to accept the same were communicated to defendant through its officers and members. That thereafter, and on or about the 10th day of November, 1947, and for the purpose of inducing plaintiff not to accept employment other than with the defendant, the defendant promised plaintiff that upon his retirement he would be entitled to certain benefits; that in reliance upon this promise of the defendant, plaintiff refused the offer of outside employment and remained in the service of defendant for a period in excess of two years. In conclusion, the complaint alleges that plaintiff retired and demanded performance of defendant's promise; that plaintiff was not paid or given the retirement benefits promised him; that on the contrary, the defendant repudiated its obligation to him; and that plaintiff has exhausted all the available and required trade union appellate procedures.

The answer of defendant admits that it is an unincorporated association existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California; that plaintiff was an officer of defendant for a long and continuous period of time prior to the 10th day of November, 1947, during which time plaintiff received a weekly salary for his services; that plaintiff's official capacity with defendant and his salary incident thereto, were contingent upon his being re-elected at general elections held every two years; that there were no provisions in the by-laws or the constitution of the defendant, for the pensioning or retirement of union officials irrespective of their length of service. The defendant admits by its answer that plaintiff appealed to the International Union, of which defendant is an affiliate, and admits that said appeal was denied; that every one of its members is required by the constitution to exhaust all remedies of appeal or protest before resorting to any other court or tribunal, and that any member who brings a legal action against defendant without first availing himself of all remedies of appeal provided for in such constitution, shall thereafter be ineligible to hold any office in any local or international union. The defendant denies that the exhaustion of said appellate procedures was necessary in plaintiff's case; that plaintiff either received or intended to accept an offer of employment by Robert Murphy as alleged in the complaint.

At the inception of the trial the defendant moved pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 597, that the court try the special issues raised by the plea of the statute of limitations. The court granted defendant's motion and a hearing on this special defense was had by the court sitting without a jury.

In connection with this hearing, and for all purposes of the trial, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into the following stipulations: (1) that at some time prior to October 27, 1947, respondent informed appellant that he intended to resign his elective office as executive secretary in order to accept an offer of employment by the House of Murphy; (2) that on October 27, 1947, and at a general membership meeting of appellant, the retirement resolution was read and the same was ordered referred to the executive board for its consideration since the resolution proposed the expenditure of money; (3) that on November 6, 1947, the executive board of appellant met, considered the retirement resolution and recommended that the same be adopted by appellant's membership; (4) that on November 10, 1947, a general membership meeting of appellant was held, whereat the retirement resolution together with the recommendations of the executive board were considered and the same were then and there adopted; (5) that on February 9, 1948, a general membership meeting approved the minutes of the general membership meeting of November 10, 1947; (6) that on March 6, 1950, Mr. Van Hook was defeated for re-election as secretary of appellant; (7) that on March 11, 1950, and prior to the expiration of his term of office, Mr. Van Hook wrote a letter to appellant wherein he stated that he was retiring and now availed himself of the retirement benefits promised him according to the terms of the resolution of November 10, 1947; (8) that on March 13, 1950, a general membership meeting carried a motion to refer the matter of respondent's retirement to the executive board; (9) that on March 23, 1950, the executive board of appellant directed that it employ an attorney to analyze the legal aspects of the resolution; (10) that on April 10, 1950, the executive board of appellant received an attorney's memorandum on the subject of the retirement resolution and ordered that the same be sent to the general president of the International Union; (11) that on December 13, 1951, one Richard H. Cantillon, an attorney at law, communicated with the International president to ascertain what disposition, if any, had been made by him of respondent's claim to retirement benefits; (12) that on December 17, 1951, the International president responded to Mr. Cantillon's inquiry by letter, and stated, among other things: 'It would appear to us that this is a simple trade union matter that does not require the services of an attorney * * *'; (13) that on February 18, 1952, respondent wrote a letter to appellant in which he recited the fact of his prior written notice and in which letter he enclosed the minutes of the meetings of October 27, 1947, November 6, 1947, November 10, 1947, and February 10, 1948, hereinabove referred to. Respondent also stated in said letter that the only information that was available to him relative to the appellant's disposition toward his claimed retirement benefits was contained in the minutes of the meetings of March 23 and 27, and April 6 and 10, 1950. Respondent also stated that unless prompt remittance was made of the money then due, he would take what action he deemed necessary; (14) that on February 25, 1952, appellant wrote a letter to respondent acknowledging receipt of the letter of February 18, 1952, and stating that legal counsel for appellant had advised them that they were 'under no contractual obligation to pay you any money'; (15) that on March 6, 1952, respondent wrote a letter to the International president '[a]ppealing from the decision contained [in the letter of February 25, 1952].' This appeal was supported by copies of the pertinent 1947 resolution and minutes, together with a copy of the minutes of the meeting of February 10, 1948; (16) that on March 24, 1952, a general membership meeting of appellant adopted a resolution repudiating any obligation to respondent; (17) that on March 28, 1952, the International president denied respondent's 'appeal' by rendering 'Decision 3110.' (The evidence discloses that on April 2, 1952, the executive board of appellant received and read Decision 3110 of the International president and referred the same to the general membership meeting of April 28, 1952, whereat 'the fact was noted [in the minutes] that the General President denied the appeal.' At this meeting a motion was made, seconded and carried that Decision 3110 be 'noted and filed'; (18) that on May 24, 1952, respondent appealed the decision of the general president (Decision 3110) of March 28, 1952, to the General Executive Board of the International Union; and (19) that on July 3, 1952, the General Executive Board of the International Union notified respondent that his appeal to them was denied and they affirmed the decision of the general president.

In support of the judgment the evidence discloses that while Mr. Van Hook was secretary of Local 17 he became acquainted with one Robert Murphy, an employer who was engaged in the successful operation of a restaurant in Los Angeles, California.

In the latter part of 1946 Mr. Van Hook had a conversation with Mr. Murphy wherein the latter proposed that Mr. Van Hook go to work for Mr. Murphy in his cafe. Following this initial conversation respondent and Mr. Murphy met on several occasions and discussed the subject of his employment by Murphy. The last of these meetings took place some time in the middle of the summer of 1947, at which time Mr. Murphy presented Mr. Van Hook with a...