*1 February 7, 5407. No. In Bank. 1941.] [Sac. (a Corpora MANUFACTURING COMPANY
BODINSON EMPLOYMENT tion), Petitioner, CALIFORNIA FRANK H. CAIL Respondents; al., COMMISSION et Co-respondents. al., TEAUX et *2 Jr., Edwin Mannon, Pillsbury, George M. S. J. O. Bahrs McCutchen, & Olney, Mannon Greene for Petitioners. Joseph Horton, Horton, K. as Curiae, & Amici Horton on Petitioners. behalf Deputy Dailey, Attorney-General, Warren,
Earl John J. Walls McCaffrey Glenn V. Attorney-General, P. Maurice Respondents. Co-respondents. Kenny E. Cohn for W. and Morris Robert Curiae, Respondents. Marks, behalf of Milton as Amicus on Curiae, Brobeck, Amici on behalf Phleger Harrison, & as of Petitioners.
GIBSON, Petitioner soughtof mandamus C. J. a writ District, compel Appeal, District Court of Third awarding un respondent Commission to set its decision aside co-respondents, employment compensation to two compel compensation co-respond deny it to the other such compel petitioner’s rating ents, and to to correct merit (Stats. Unemployment chap. under the Insurance Act. Deering’s amended; Laws, 1939 Supp., Gen. Act 8780d.) The prayed. petition writ issued as Thereafter a *3 by respondents co-respondents hearing and for in this court granted.
There is no as conflict to material facts. The California Employment charged Commission by is with law the ad- Unemployment peti- ministration of the Act. Insurance The tioner, Manufacturing Company, Bodinson is an employer subject act, company to the terms and both the and employees required by have as its contributed law to the which benefit payments fund from made from time to unemployed pursuant provisions time to workers to the of the co-respondents The five named who, statute. are machinists prior May 24, for time 1939, some had employed been petitioner plant at its in San Francisco. morning May 24, 1939,
On a strike was called petitioner’s employees certain of who were members of Union, co-respondent the Welders Local 1330. The machin- Union, ists were not Welders members 1330, Local go against petitioner, and not on strike did May but from 24, July 1939, co-respondents 10, were unemployed solely they pass through refused to picket because line which striking had petitioner’s welders around established plant. unemployment for Co-respondents applied payments benefit and an initial 67 of determination was made under section act, denying application. employees, their Two of the permitted by Cailteaux Harvey, appealed and section and the decision was as to them the The reversed referee. petitioner, Manufacturing Company, thereupon ap- Bodinson pealed (see 72), to the full commission sec. which rendered its holding employees that the were entitled to two unemployment compensation act, under the and further indi- cated similarly that would award all others Having (see situated. exhausted its under act remedies Abelleira v. Appeal, ante, p. District Court (2d) 942], day sought decided), petitioner this writ of theory mandate on the the commission’s order was that provisions Unemployment violation of the Insurance Act. statute,
Petitioner interpreted, contends properly that co-respondents ineligible payments. makes to receive benefit provision The applicable 56, reading section is as follows: “An eligible unemployment, individual is for benefits payable any no such benefit shall be himto under of the following (a) conditions: If he his work left because of a dispute period during trade and for the which he continues dispute out of work reason of the fact that the trade is progress still active in the establishment in which he was respondent employed.” co-respond- The commission and ent machinists contend that this clause was intended dis- qualify only those who voluntarily workers leave their work dispute, because of a trade co-respondents did not voluntarily. They leave their work further assert that the petitioner proper party question is not a to raise the by this proceeding mandamus. statutory interpretation. main issue is one It
necessary meaning to determine the legislative declara disqualified that a workman tion if he left his work because dispute. rights trade The fundamental organized not involved in controversy. labor are No one has chal *4 right of lenged the labor to strike or to picket maintain lines by purposes (Cf. sanctioned for the law. McKay v. Retail Salesmen’s Local Union 1067, Automobile No. 16 (2d) Cal. (2d) 373]; E. Pac. H. Renzel 311 v. Co. [106 Warehousemen’s 38-44, (2d) L. A. 16 Cal. I. 369 Union ; Pac. (2d) [106 1] Metropolitan Market Co., Ltd., Smith C. S. v. Lyons, 16 Cal. (2d) 414]; Registered Pac. (2d) 389 v. [106 Pharma- Shafer Union (2d) ; cists Local (2d) 16 Cal. Pac. [106 403] Lund v. Auto Mechanics Union 16 Cal. No. 408].) the province of court to consider
It is not the upon arguments policy urged of which have been social be, side; each must and no doubt these are matters which have were, legislature. We no addressed to the up by question scheme the wisdom or unwisdom of the set upon statute, and the social desirabil- we cannot deliberate ity making which groups are excluded payments.to benefit statute. which benefits are The conditions under paid Thus, provided by legislature. be have been present question sole case employees the five in the whether meet the conditions statute prescribes. which the procedure for provide its own
The not statute does the commission testing particular whether decision authority delegated to with the awarding benefits is consistent only express provision the act. The commission under permits 45.10, which section for court review is made sought to employer legality of the contribution to contest protest under and then against by paying it be enforced him paid. It does not follow from suing to recover the so amount power to are this, however, courts without review a that the unemployment alleged when it is awarding provisions plain has violated the that commission under which it functions. statute We law. question is one of not presented
The con finality the legislature degree here with which cerned upon the commission’s may confer determi have intended to legislative body pro failure nations of fact. might specific judicial well be means of review held to vide a that the an intention commission’s decisions were to indicate legislature make could them final in so far as be final. this, from Respondents however, would have us deduce that awarding decisions legislature intended benefits to final, be findings fact, but on matters only also as to of statu questions interpretation other of law. tory We agency course, an administrative recognize, charged particular carrying adopt out a statute must pre with some upon liminary statute as a basis construction which true that It likewise the administrative proceed. interpre great respect will be a statute accorded tation courts if not clearly followed erroneous. (People will *5 326 ; Co., 594, 578, 209 595 Pac.
Southern
Cal.
[290
25]
Pacific
Riley
Thompson,
773,
772];
193
v.
Cal.
778
Pac.
Colonial
[227
651,
Co., Ltd., Mitchell,
App.
657
Mut. C. Ins.
v.
140 Cal.
(2d) 127];
See, also,
Pac.
23
776.
United
Cal. Jur.
States
[36
Philbrick,
Sup.
413,
559];
v.
120
Ed.
52,
U. S.
59
Ct.
30 L.
[7
McCaughn Hershey
Co., 283
Sup.
Chocolate
U.
488
v.
S.
[51
469.)
510,
;
Ct.
75
40
L. Rev.
L. Ed.
Harv.
But such
1183]
interpretation
pretense
a tentative administrative
makes no
at
finality
question
duty
and it
when
a
court,
is the
of
such
properly presented,
meaning
of
of
law is
to state
true
requires
though
finally
conclusively,
statute
even
the overthrow of an earlier erroneous administrative construc
(Riley
Forbes,
;
740,
tion.
v.
193
745
Pac.
Cal.
[227
768]
McCall,
Hodge
330,
86];
v.
334
23
185 Cal.
Pac.
Cal.
[197
Gratz,
421,
776; see
Trade
v.
253
S.
Jur.
Federal
Com.
U.
Sup.
572,
993];
427
L.
v.
64
Ed.
United States Dick
Ct.
[40
son,
141, 161,
689]; Hough
40
162
U. S.
L. Ed.
[15 Pet.]
[10
Sup.
Payne,
88, 99,
590,
ton v.
194
100
Ct.
48
U. S.
[24
;
Helvering, 298
L.
Koshland v.
U. S. 441
Sup.
Ed.
[56
888]
;
767,
1268, 105
R.
v.
Ct.
80 L.
A. L.
Iselin
Ed.
United
756]
Sup.
States,
248,
566];
270 U.
245
70
Ed.
59
S.
Ct.
L.
[46
844;
840,
Landis,
L.
1028; 29 Mich.
Rev.
Administra
C. J.
[1938], pp. 150-152; Blachly
Oatman,
Process
&
tive
Ad
Adjudication
Legislation
p.
&
[1934],
184.)
ministrative
interpretation
a
The ultimate
statute
exercise
(Code
judicial power.
Proc.,
2102;
Civ.
sec.
Sierra
Co.
Co.,
1,
371]; Signal
155 Cal.
14
Pac.
v. Nevada
Hill v.
[99
Angeles,
County
327 Any possi stitutional. such construction to be avoided if 594; (People Co., supra, p. ble. v. Southern at Pacific County Angeles Legg, (2d) 349, Los v. Cal. Pac. [55 (2d) 206]; County Angeles Riley, (2d) 625, Los 6 Cal. 615.) ; Furthermore, 6 Cal. Jur. 139] finality co-respond of decision which is contended for particular ents this case where the happens to might, case, operate prevent favorable to them in a future *6 just by a workman whose claim denied the was commission from applying Thus, despite pro to the courts for redress. creating cedural agencies, omissions in statutes administrative must, principles, this court under well settled continue to exer authority its constitutional final cise to render decisions on questions properly in of law which are raised connection with agencies. the acts of such required,
We are therefore for first con time, the to disqualification Unemployment strue the clause of the Insur ineligible ance makes Act which a workman for he if benefits dispute”. his work ques has “left because of a trade It is a upon Respondents tion in which no this state. exists language statute, contend that the of the California which implies says work”, disqualified “left his that the laborer is unemployment only if for he leaves his work volun (See tarily. Spector, Fierst & “Unemployment Compensa Disputes” (1940), 49 Yale tion Labor L. J. 462.) Reasoning respondents premise, from contend that the co respondent machinists this case did not leave their work prevented voluntarily, going were from but there reason picket striking line the It argued welders. is that disqualification they voluntarily, if not leave did clause paid that benefits should apply, does not and be to them. argument is weakness of this not in the The underlying upon respondents rely, which but in premise its application upon assumption present case based to the that the em- pass picket ployees who refused line did not act of It is proper volition. true that under the own their construc- employee prevented an who is statute of the from tion working own is entitled to through compensation no act of his as, he example, premises is barred force from the where where working. But that been is he has situation here. If was maintained within the picket permitted line limits was, presumably physical no law, compulsion one as was co-respondents prevent from working. exerted They were their union unemployed solely because, in with accordance cer plant in a where they to work principles, did not choose con on Their own employees tain their fellow were strike. principles dictated their ac sciences faith in their union and organized labor members of tion. This is one which choice eyes upon frequently make, called involuntary. never been deemed law this kind choice has dealing very in a recent case point considered us This employer picket, wherein the right with unions to labor picket injunction line sought ground on the upon operated compulsion other union men. an unlawful “ that when truck drivers obviously untrue We said ... it line, go through picket by other firms refuse to employed undoubtedly based they involuntarily. Such refusal do so they union the local to which upon freely adopted rules Smith, Ltd., Co., Market (C. Metropolitan belong.” S. 414].) Lyons, 16 Cal. depends upon act disqualification under the brief, In motives voluntary action, not the which led to it. fact principles union interfere with not seek to legislature did merely up sets certain conditions as a The act practices. or compensation, right and declares to receive prerequisite to ineligible to re- the worker shall situations that in certain interpreted, was intended Fairly compensation. *7 ceive voluntarily leave work workers who their disqualify those Co-respondents proceeding dispute. of a trade because dispute” of a trade their work because in fact “left payments. benefit It consequently ineligible to receive fol- a mat- decision was erroneous as commission’s lows Respondents have should be annulled. raised law and ter of procedural nature. a issues of further two right that the to receive benefits is contended .cannot It proceeding mandamus, and, in by this be raised properly proper person not a employer is to chal- event, that the any awarding benefits under the act. In our lenge a is sound. neither contention opinion provided is mandamus for in of the Code The writ may sought by 1084-1097. It be Procedure, sections of Civil (sec. 1086) against beneficially interested” “an in- “party a person, compel or corporation, board tribunal, ferior specially enjoins.” the law act which of performance the writ been Historically has used for 1085.) far (Sec. for which it used in those than state purposes narrower
329
today.
merely
proceed
traditionally
Mandamus has
been
a
ing
performance
compel
of
has
ministerial duties and
widely
reviewing
decisions
been
used as a method for
agencies.
(United
of administrative
States ex rel. McLennan
Wilbur,
;
v.
Sup.
502,
283
S. 414
L.
U.
Ct.
75
Ed. 1148]
[51
Hitchcock,
United States ex rel.
Oil
v.
190 U. S.
Riverside
Co.
Sup.
316
698,
; Cousens, “Legal
Ed.
Ct.
47 L.
Doubt
[23
1074]
Refusing
or Determination as
for
Mandamus’’
a Ground
272;
24
[1936], Georgetown
Jour.
Pa. Rev.
269,
L.
78 U.
L.
jurisdictions
for
[1930], 407.)
In
other
where
means exist
reviewing
bodies,
the acts and decisions of administrative
specific
procedure
certiorari,
either by
statutory
or writ
necessity
enlarging
there has been no
for
of manda
writ
beyond
sphere.
however,
mus
conventional
In this state,
its
the law is now established that mandamus is the remedial writ
which will be used to correct those acts and decisions of ad
agencies
law,
ministrative
which are in violation
no
where
adequate remedy
provided.
other
(Drummey
v. State
Board,
(2d) 75,
13 Cal.
82
(2d) 848]; McDonough
Pac.
v.
[87
Goodcell,
(2d)
(2d)
13
741
Cal.
Pac.
123 A.
R.L.
[91
(2d)
1205];
Board,
Whitten v.
State
8 Cal.
444, 447
California
(2d)
115 L. R.
16
;
Pac.
A.
765, 823;
cf. Cal. Jur.
[65
1]
[1939], 738.)
L. Rev.
Our
27
late decisions
recog
Cal.
have
mandamus to review
nized that
use
acts
administra
departure
agencies is
from the
tive
traditional purpose of
many
writ,
concerning
and that
historical theories
manda
example,
(as,
mus
technicalities
rule that discre
will
inferior officer
bar the
writ)
tion in the
issuance
always
applicable where
writ
will not
is used to review
(Drummey
administrative bodies.
acts of
State
v.
Board
Directors,
p. 84;
supra,
McDonough
Funeral
Goodcell,
v.
752.) Thus,
writ
been
supra, p.
has
used not only to
action which
compel
administrative
refused
violation
Waters,
(2d)
11
(Wahl v.
Cal.
81
(2d)
of law
Pac.
1072];
[77
Leland,
v.
9
Anglo
(2d)
National Bank
Cal.
347 [70
Calif.
City
v.
(2d) 937];
Employees
Peters
Sacramento
Pac.
Retire
System,
App.
27 Cal.
ment
;
[80
179]
Merritt,
App.
Cal.
Hartsock
Pac. 381]),
but
restrain administrative
annul or
action already
also to
taken
*8
(Drummey
of
in violation
law.
v.
which is
State Board,
Stockburger, 10
Clancy
(2d)
v.
Cal.
supra;
651
Pac.
[76
Board
Pub.
Rodgers
Works,
v.
678];
208
Cal. 291
[281
Hoppin,
Lotts
Inglin
582];
Pac.
It is a that the is not contended proper party challenge to the decision commission providing In awarding benefits under act. mandamus Procedure, 1086, re proceedings the of Civil section Code quires petitioner party “beneficially in only be a that the “any provides 67 that em The act in section terested.” may by payment ployer be affected whose reserve account formerly employ may individual in his be any benefits to any party proceeding come under this Article. an interested to ” petitioner required took . . . It is conceded that the party steps under the statute an interested to become indeed, moving party in present appealing and, was the case awarding to from the decision full commission co-respondents. We are aware of no which person permitted participate statute to holds that a hearings party in the administrative to take interested is, nevertheless, level a appeals at the administrative without legality the result to test the of the final sufficient interest Indeed, of law. it seems court to us that before a decision require parties justice that ad principles elemental proceeding permitted to retain their status as ministrative judicial law, a throughout final review court of such litigation essentially remain fundamental issues for the Singer (Cf. & Sons v. Union Pac. Co., — L. R. the same. — — Sup. —], Ct. L. Ed. U. S. [Adv.] p. 259.) concurring Frankfurter, J., at Furthermore, employer reserve apparent that whose account seems person having only sufficient incentive to chal is the affected awarding lenge employer benefits. Action a guarantee only procedural that the commission provides comply legal process requirements with the be held can operates. under which it statute rules governing a , suggest taxpayer’s Respondents agency governmental public from spending restrain suit *9 money by analogy control result here. Cases should the are only public, the whose cited to the effect that a member of a particular interest is that of the administrative act general the of statute taxpayer, not in absence should permitted processes government interfere to with the against agency. (See bringing proceeding the Froth a court ingham Sup. 597, 67 Mellon, L. Ed. U. S. 447 Ct. analogous. 1078].) not A more accurate The are situations agencies parallel is the various administrative furnished powers for created in with limited state and elsewhere purpose particular phases the relation dealing with ship Hearings employers employees. before between and proceedings in agencies adversary such which are treated permitted question are parties interested on each side of the adopted appear. in workmen's com procedure to This statutes, pensation we relation and do and labor acts creating depart from it in legislature to think the intended adversary Employment Commission. California parties appeals as proceedings are entitled to such to these to permitted statute, further, are entitled and are under the decision, final thus appear in the commission’s to test court requirements the law. Our insuring compliance with petitioner proper was therefore, is, conclusion the commission’s decision award party legality of to test the proceeding mandamus. ing unemployment benefits improper for this to highly court It would course be agency on administrative opinion for that'of an substitute its agency de- properly entrusted to the were matters which however, accepting the ex- present case, facts In the cide. is clear commission, it that there was actly as found co-respond- benefits to the award of statutory no writ mandate should issue peremptory ents, and the the award. annul quash
The demurrers overruled and motions are denied. The writ commission is alternative directed co-respondents, Haydoclc, to the Almeida benefits disallow petitioner’s all and to credit to account Martinez and co-respondents disregard and to the other paid to heretofore petitioner’s determining co-respondents claims of Unemployment Insurance Act. under the rating merit Peters, J., pro tem., J., Traynor, and con J., Edmonds, curred. tem., Concurring.
SHENK, J., pro J., and WARD, judgment ground the undis We concurin the that on on upon puted the statute interpretation placed facts sought granted. petitioner relief entitled to the 1941. Car- petition rehearing denied March A for a rehearing. J., ter, voted for a *10 February 17, In Bank. 16488. A. No. 1941.] [L. Executor, etc., Respondent, v. FORBES, CHARLES EPIS THE METHODIST MISSIONS OF BOARD OF Ap (a Corporation), al., CHURCH, et SOUTH COPAL pellants.