*1 No. 16210.Third Dist. June 1977.] [Civ. UNION, ALLIED WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL AND MOLDERS 164, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, LOCAL v. COUNTY, JOAQUIN
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN Respondent; WORKS, INC., Interest.
LODI IRON Real Party *4 Counsel Allen,
Van & and David Rosenfeld for Bourg, Weinberg Roger Petitioner.
No for appearance Respondent.
Littler, Fastiff, Littler, Mendelson, Mendelson & Fastiff & Tichy *5 C. Roeder for Real in Interest. Randolph Party
Opinion 15,
PARAS, J. 1976, On after failure to renew a April negotiations collective and petitioner International Molders agreement, bargaining Union, Allied Workers Local 164 (hereinafter commenced a Molders) strike real in interest Lodi Iron Works Lodi) against party (hereinafter Lodi, California. Peaceful took until the picketing place morning 4, 1976, when Lodi an in local advertisement the May placed newspaper workers were needed at its On that the date stating foundry plant. number of increased. pickets dramatically 5, 1976,
On Lodi filed a for May complaint injunction, seeking its Molders and members from in enjoin engaging illegal picketing After activities. written and on notice 5 and to Molders May telephone and its after and himself the office of the attorneys, judge telephoned made, for Molders and established that no would attorney be appearance 6, 1976, order, on court an issued and May temporary restraining 20, order to show cause which it set for 1976. on hearing May court, 19, 1976, counsel for Lodi sent a On telegram May Union, I have Victor Van the defendant “Counsel for Bourg, stating: of the a one week continuance hearing preliminary agreed matter, in this temporary continuing hearing injunction 27, 1976, o’clock AM. Mr. at 9:00 order to Thursday, May restraining contin- to one is the defendant’s Van statutory right Bourg exercising to Mr. A of this sent uance as a matter of being copy telegram right. was continued to this Van The matter pursuant request. Bourg.” 1976, of the court 21, sent a letter to the clerk On Van Bourg May office will confirm our call today, “This your telephone stating: unrelated case and two parties, indicating by agreement [this have been Lodi were . .. cases in which Molders and involved] 28, A.M.” 1976 at 9:00 (Italics continued May original.) Friday, 28, 1976, and the court the matter was On argued, granted May injunction. preliminary Fuller, its 3, 1976, Lodi filed a declaration
On June plant by Ralph referred to sometimes 63 violations (hereinafter superintendent, alleging to this Pursuant order. of the counts) restraining temporary individual and four of its declaration, Molders the court ordered not be held should on June to show cause they why members On June order. of the restraining temporary 16, 1976, Lodi filed a 22, 1976. On June to June matter was continued Fuller, 45 violations declaration by alleging supplemental to show order another The court issued preliminary injunction. for members, also and set this of its cause to Molders and seven hearing *6 22, June 1976. 23, 22 and was held on June to show cause
Trial on the first order 29, 1976, the court heard 1976, at which time to June and continued 1976, 1, cause. On order to show relative to second July testimony restrain- four violations of the Molders of court found temporary guilty 19, $1,000. each, On order, for a total of $250 fined it on August ing 1976, court found Molders violations preliminary guilty committed individuals had that 6 named and also found injunction, violation, a total of for $250 fined Molders was violations. per specific sentences were ordered to serve $3,750; the individuals five-day jail the result that with violation, of which were some on each suspended, court The time in ordered to serve jail. four of the six were actually for 10 of the sentences enforcement days. stayed meantime, 10, 1976, In the on for Molders filed a writ August petition court, of certiorari in this and a review of seeking stay contempt citations on order. We issued a order on temporary restraining stay 14, and a writ review on 1976. On August September 2, 1976, the six individuals found September filed writ in this court a for of habeas
preliminary injunction petition We treated this as one for certiorari and issued a corpus. petition stay 2, 1976, 1976; 28, order on on we consolidated the September September latter case Civ. (3 8892) with the earlier writ of review Civ. (3 16210).1 Temporary Restraining
The Order With out of the respect contempt judgments arising temporary order, Molders makes four restraining arguments:
1. The order violated Code of Civil temporary restraining Procedure section 527.3.
2. 20, The 1976, order before temporary restraining expired May of the violations occurred. any
3. The are not substantial judgments supported evidence.
4. The declaration failed to initiating contempt charges give notice to Molders to enable it to adequate a defense. prepare
I alia, order of inter restrained temporary restraining May Molders from: manner entrance to or “Physically obstructing any any from, exit in this there shall not be more plaintiff's premises; regard, than two within 20 (2) feet of entrance or exit pickets any Molders contends that this of the order violates premises.” paragraph *7 527.3, 29, Code of Civil Procedure section enacted 1975 September 10, 1976, (for certiorari) 1A third a writ of on filed petition September seeking $3,750 review of the in fines Molders for violations of the against preliminary injunction. 16287.) (3 We Civ. issued a but after and consideration of denied stay, receipt opposition, 29, Court, 1976. Thereafter review was in the petition September sought Supreme which on October denied the petition. 402 1975,
(Stats. 1156) ch. and effective 1976.2It January argues “[t]he C. P. of C. 527.3 was without a doubt § such purpose prohibit numbers, restrictions as those numbers are as upon long peaceful.” in The statute part: provides pertinent . to issue ... no court .. shall have any restraining
“(b) jurisdiction . . .... which . order or or prohibits injunction preliminary permanent labor or “(2) any dispute, picketing patrolling involving Peaceful whether or in numbers. engaged singly It is not intent of this section conduct “(e) to permit conduct, the unlawful breach of the unlawful including peace, disorderly exists, of access or a labor or where blocking egress premises dispute other similar unlawful (Italics added.) activity.” does view differ from
The law enunciated in section 527.3 not in our area, in United Farm case law in this most summarized recently 499 America v. Court 16 Cal.3d Workers (1976) Cal.Rptr. [128 Superior Dealers Institute v. 546 P.2d Retail 713], and Liquor California In 407], United Farm Workers (1976) Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d [129 cases, labor both of which involved the same these dispute, a class had obtained Retail Dealers Institute California injunc- Liquor Farm Workers 2,000 the United on behalf its members tion against Union, limited which the union’s activities (in protest picketing against at each to three sold in members’ stores) Gallo pickets products liquor therefrom, entrance, and not and store not less than six feet driveway declarations of in front thereof. The was based directly injunction upon front of their massed in that union had the institute’s members pickets from had entrances so as prevent entering, engaged public acts of violence and property damage. “failed to establish Court that the had
Our
held
Supreme
plaintiffs
action”
Cal.3d at
(16
interest to
a class
community
requisite
support
Constitution,
IV,
enacted at
section 8: “. . a statute
a regular
article
.
2California
from the date of
next
a 90-day
into effect on
January
following
period
session shall go
. .
enactment of the statute
. .”
*8
because the
505),
declarations failed to show that
activities had
p.
illegal
occurred at
member’s store or even that
of
all
sold
members
every
Gallo
established,
court went on to state: “It is well
of
products.
course, that
violence,
such unlawful labor activities as
intimidation and
obstruction
be
the courts. In United Farm
properly may
enjoined by
Court,
Workers
Committee v.
After the Court’s Supreme Court of considered opinion, Appeal of the as to the named validity individual injunction It plaintiffs. found the restrictions on record, picketing justified light stating:
“UFW’s
to the
as it
only
objection
individual
injunction
applies
is that it sets forth
plaintiffs
number and distance restrictions on the
mode of
UFW relies on Davis v. Francois
Cir.
picketing.
(5th
1968)
F.2d
where an ordinance
the number of
to two
limiting
pickets
time,
However,
regardless
circumstances was held invalid.
place
as the United States
Court
in Drivers Union v.
Supreme
explained
Co.,
Meadowmoor
273]; Schwartz-Torrance Bakery Confectionery Corp. 766, 233, 394 P.2d 61 770-771 Workers’ Union Cal.2d (1964) Cal.Rptr. [40 Union, 31 Cal.2d at N. Pac. R. R. Co. v. Lumber & S. W. 921]; W. supra, 447 at added.) (57 611.) P.2d 277].)” (Italics Cal.App.3d p. p. [189 been, it has ever the
As only objective picketing legitimate thus continues to be the to the so transmission information public, elect or the know the to public may grievance support picketers’ it. 527.3 reaffirms it. As Far from this section reject objective, repudiating .. or in numbers” in subdivision it (b)(2), “whether . phrase, singly the condones which statute the merely descriptive picketing activity than a and which is carried on more commonly by single picket. Lodi in of the Two were filed declarations temporary by support Fuller, “On first, stated: The order. by superintendent plant restraining a local an article in of May Company placed morning Works, Iron needed at Lodi workers were newspaper stating foundry The ad listed the which under conditions. strike positions presently at the could that were and indicated that interested needed persons apply more or call for information. foundry A.M., 1976, 20 to 30 massed 9:00
“On pickets May approximately for door which in front of the small office employ- applicants through rather were were not but ment would have moving pass. pickets difficult, into the in bunches building extremely standing making ingress if not impossible.
“This lasted with the numbers starting picketing throughout day five fade at 5:00 P.M. was down about people Picketing approximately time, made it 25 6:30 P.M. this During persons approximately However, order for employment. through pickets apply 50 to were turned 100 away by pickets approximately people throughout day.3 in the A.M., there were
“On at 6:45 pickets May approximately office front area. There were standing pickets approximately This were door while the rest around shop gate. pickets for employ 3We omit which relate what some hearsay applicants certain statements ment told Fuller the had to them. said pickets lasted until 10:20 A.M. when the crowd picketing approximately began *10 thin out. to
“After A.M. 10:20 there were 12 in front of the approximately pickets office, 12 in front of the and ten to the north of the office. These gate, are not but rather are in bunches. pickets marching just standing “In the when there were 50 morning approximately pickets, street, were out into the the street. Cars to pickets spilling blocking trying had to in order to weave their I get through stop way through pickets. also saw one who was surrounded person by During pickets. morning I also saw two or three of the baseball bats.” pickets carrying Williams,
The second declaration was Melvin a by 20-year-old for He stated: at “On applicant employment. Wednesday, May A.M., Works, I 10:00 went to the Lodi Iron at located approximately Street, Lodi, California, South Sacramento to seek My employment. father went with me of because both us are at the unemployed present time and we need work.
“When we Works, arrived at the Lodi Iron we discovered that there was a mob of in front of the main office. I was great Because pickets right to the to for going I had to into the Company apply employment, go business office first. As father and I the door into the my approached office, business we were confronted two or three of the by one pickets, whom was a two foot black wire-hose. He was carrying long holding hose in a manner and I was afraid that very he use it threatening might Ime. did not seconds, and after a few say he and the other anything two men father and started to talk to I got him. then my proceeded door but five other ran over and stood in I suddenly, front me. pickets tall, am about feet 10 most, all, inches if not of these only men were over 6 feet tall and much I heavier than am. All of them had wrenches and acted as if were use them on me. One they they going men, these door, who stood between me and the said ‘We are not right let him, in.’ One of the other men was “Hit hit him!” going you yelling I Needless not enter I did but turned around and left say, immediately.
“I left, am I certain that if had not I would have been physically assaulted I know that these men were because pickets. pickets had numerous which identified them as from they picket being signs Local 164 of the Molders Union. There were at least or twenty thirty time, were all mobbed front they right
pickets office.” entrance into business
These declarations the trial court’s restrain supported adequately order two the within number feet of ing limiting any pickets twenty entrance or exit. The order number of to be permitted any pickets outside 20-foot Such a restriction allowed Holders present perimeter. to continue to show the of its convictions strength by fielding large *11 of number but a reasonable distance to pickets, provided permit ingress and minimize will not be confrontations. Holders egress physical heard to because it its the order from complain abusing prevented time-honored and to universally respected right picket peacefully, 527.3, a court from (b), section subdivision Nothing prevents here, where, reasonable restrictions on as the absence picketing placing of and interference of such has resulted in threats violence restrictions In also re Coleman with and with freedom of movement. (See access 381, 568, 526 P.2d San 533]; 12 Cal.3d 572 (1974) Diego Cal.Rptr. [116 241 (1966) Gas Elec. Co. v. San Racial Equality Diego Congress of numerical restrictions 407 (upholding Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.2d 638] [50 was valid. order on The restraining temporary picketing).) II on order that the Holders restraining expired temporary argues a 21, 1976, 527 Code of Civil Procedure § “because imposes Hay ordered limit such unless otherwise on by fifteen-day injunctions to It to show cause was continued court.” contends that the order only 1976; order was that no Hay restraining stipulation continuing filed, it and there is to indicate that continued in effect. nothing
The is Holders does not assert disingenuous. argument to from court failed Lodi’s attorney Hay telegram face reflect the of Holders’ counsel. On its understanding telegram to continue “. .. and the recites an temporary agreement hearing 27, 1976 added.) order to .. ..” (Italics Thursday, restraining Hay order minutes of court also reflect an temporary continuing Nor Holders order well as the order to show cause. does as restraining as a its the continuance matter counsel right, deny requested “The 527, which Code Civil Procedure section provides: pursuant for entitled, course, to one continuance . . . be defendant shall it, to meet the if he desire to enable him reasonable application period, for the injunction.” preliminary
407 because it would so defeat section obviously Perhaps purpose defendant a to a continuance without also give right giving a concurrent and automatic extension of the restrain- plaintiff temporary order, find no we in which that was ing authority question directly event, In discussed. it is that the limitation is for the any apparent 15-day defendant, of the restrained to enable him contest the protection at an date. allegations a continuance the 15 early By requesting beyond Molders waived this Plaintiff days, was protection. powerless prevent the continuance. The matter was thereafter heard the court without or claim of defective any objection Under such circum- proceeding. stances, Molders is to assert the limitation. estopped 15-day
This West Coast Constr. Co. holding v. Oceano supported by Dist. (1971) Sanitary 169], in which the Cal.App.3d [95 Cal.Rptr. defendant contended for the first time on that the appeal injunction *12 invalid, cause, “because the order to 8, show dated was December made 24; on and, returnable therefore, December 16 later more than the days 15 in section 527 . days ...” After (17 698.) at prescribed Cal.App.3d p. four and four of continuances on the return of appearances the-hearing the order, the matter had been heard on temporary restraining finally 15, when a The Court of January issued. preliminary injunction defendant’s claim of the rejected Appeal invalidity, relying partly “ doctrine of ‘There seems to be substantial for the estoppel: authority that a who has invoked or consented to the exercise proposition party jurisdiction court’s be from beyond authority may precluded afterwards, it Witkin, even on a direct attack challenging (1 by appeal.’ 149, Cal. Too, Procedure (1954) 412.) as out in Remillard § p. pointed Dandini, Brick Co. v. 63, 47 66 P.2d 432], Cal.App.2d [117 of the statute 527) are for the of the (§ benefit requirements primarily defendant and be waived him. In accord is Munns v. may by general ‘ Stenman, 152 543, 558 P.2d “The circumstances Cal.App.2d [314 67]: a case be such toas a from particular may estop person setting up ” of a invalidity (17 699.) judgment.” Cal.App.3d p. [Citation.]’
The additional continuance from one-day May by May to the same Molders agreement parties, subject analysis. may not it that was not afforded the of section 527 complain 15-day protection where it and obtained continuance of the requested hearing beyond that time.
III are not that the supported Molders judgments argues court, the trial in its decision In evidence. open substantial announcing that it was not statement with the holding its court findings prefaced time, “in view in but for violations early Molders occurring officers and of the international shop of their participation [i/c] fact, other, that it was a in touch with each were steward and the they strike, I how can cannot see Union-sanctioned escape responsibility they then found Molders It conduct of the same for continuous variety.” 47, 53, and 59. violation), 40 and 41 as a counts (treated single guilty evidence, course bound to In we are of accept reviewing true, evidence favorable disregard any judgment Coleman, 572; (In Estate 12 Cal.3d at evidence. re contrary supra, p. 25 Cal.2d P.2d 384].) Teel (1944) foregoing Applying [154 standard, each count have the evidence we reviewed supporting carefully to review such evidence found it There is no need and have sufficient. detail.
IV with re Petitioner’s final contention respect temporary notice of the was not order is that Molders given adequate straining *13 with who acted as its individuals respect (particularly allegedly agents its defense. and thus was not 40) count present prepared adequately avers as declaration The record belies this contention. The supporting the strikers “were counts) all other acting to count 40 well as (as officers and with authorized direction of and in combination agents of the set for trial Local 164 . . ..” On of defendant day continuance. an Molders and obtained eight-day proceedings, requested notes, counsel all trial, available to Molders’ At the Lodi’s counsel made in their and information records regarding possession reports, its after case to a further continuance Lodi also at trial charges. agreed Molders further to allow was preparation fully presented, and to other Lodi’s witnesses testimony. cross-examine present striker of each that the name for the claim No is cited authority declaration, and in the in count 40 had to be stated involved supporting Molders no know of such adequately we requirement. specific
409 informed of the and had charges every opportunity prepare fully its defense. present Preliminary Injunction
The Petitioners the habeas make five with corpus proceeding4 arguments out of the respect contempts arising preliminary injunction.
a. Petitioners were entitled to a trial. jury
b. The was invalid. preliminary injunction
c. Petitioners had no notice of the preliminary injunction.
d. There is no substantial evidence to support judgments contempt.
e. The court failed to recite the specific provisions injunction which were violated.
A court trial denied demand for a properly petitioners’ jury trial. It has been established that a defendant in a civil long does not have a to a trial. v. proceeding Court right jury (Bridges Superior 14 (1939) Cal.2d 464 P.2d 983].) This has never been [94 principle overruled and has been followed. v. Court (Hawk consistently Superior 42 (1974) fn. 25 Tel. 713]; & Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [116 Pacific Tel. Co. v. Court (1968) Superior Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. [72 Workers, 177]; United Farm AFL-CIO v. Court (1968) Superior 212, 214 513].) Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. [71
B Petitioners’ contentions with to of the the respect invalidity are without merit. At the conclusion of the preliminary injunction on at which time the court the hearing May granted preliminary the court instructed counsel for Molders to make certain injunction, in the form of order which had earlier been for the changes prepared Mietz, Zavala, Johnson, 4The are Donato Charles petitioners Monroy, Ignacio Gary and Antonio Barba. Tony Hinojosa, the Counsel and .caused final signature. preliminary judge’s complied and to be it was then filed the form by prepared; signed judge injunction to made reference a the absence of Lodi’s The no counsel). (in injunction Proc., Later Lodi’s counsel bond. Civ. that same (Code 529.) day, § he and amount of bond should checked the file to determine the post attention, who the He called it noted judge’s missing provision. into the $500 a handwritten bond injunction. then inserted requirement A was forthwith. bond copy preliminary requisite posted Molders’ counsel mail then served as amended was upon by injunction It that is members Molders. various undisputed and personally upon never served the was form which lacked bond provision injunction anyone. upon without the bond that the
Petitioners’ is require- injunction argument a invalid, is violation due and the addition thereof ment ex parte obvious, the absence of bond overlook the that Petitioners process. inadvertence; a the order was clerical from as originally signed provision it and cause the reflect had the to correct injunction power judge ... its true “The own his direction intention. court may, upon motion, entered, or correct clerical in its orders as so mistakes judgment Proc., . .. .” Civ. as to conform to the or order directed (Code judgment Jurisdiction, Witkin, 473. See also Cal. Procedure ed. (2d 1970) § 222; 755; Witkin,' ed. 1971) Cal. Procedure (2d § p. Judgment, 66-69, record such action and 3228-3232.) The reflects §§ nothing pp. There is no due more. issue. process
We note that immediately although injunction parenthetically served Molders’ counsel does not (who anywhere deny knowledge upon no time did counsel or its amount), bonding requirement innumerable an increase in the amount of bond despite request court, to this As now in his brief to do so. counsel suggests opportunities the bond be that the amount Molders had every suggest right But the so to do demonstrates $500. than failure substantially higher bond an of concern the amount of lack about acceptance complete fact on the that Molders “entitled thereof. The was. rely argument Court which had ever been issued only Superior injunction a bond . .” is of comment. did not contain not worthy [provision].
C had Petitioners contend three no they following grounds *15 of notice the for (1) were they preliminary injunction: Monroy, Except
411 served, Barba, not not and Zavala do (2) petitioners personally Hinojosa, read and none of were found to be the (3) English, petitioners expressly of Molders. agents
Fuller, the testified as to of the manner service plant superintendent, 1976, of the 63 He made on June and preliminary injunction. copies served came into the at 11:57 when office personally Monroy Monroy Molders, a.m. for him to Since steward Fuller asked Monroy shop line, take about 30 out to the earlier having copies picket explained be to all the took them him that should distributed they pickets. Monroy and them a to the truck that served chair next pickup placed then observed for the Fuller Hinojo- picketers. petitioners headquarters sa, chair He also Zavala take off the Mietz and day. copies during read Without saw lot of take them. “a indicating people” copies that with Fuller testified whether he saw them of injunction, copy owned he also observed Johnson (who camper) pickup petitioners afternoon, were after the on the that line injunctions Hinojosa picket that all had out. The trial court found the petitioners passed expressly of the terms of the injunction. knowledge preliminary A cannot be if he had neither held in knowledge party nor notice of an order for the violation of which the is sought. 22 256 v. v. Court Cal.2d P.2d (1943) 838]; Bryant (Phillips Superior [137 Witkin, Court P.2d Cal. (1939) 837]; Superior Cal.App.2d [86 ed. of 3526.) Procedure Enforcement (2d 1971) § Judgment, p. Therefore, Barba cannot be of adjudication contempt against Zavala, however, Mietz, sustained.5 As for Johnson and Hinojosa, testified to of facts Fuller are sufficient by findings support knowledge. Zavala that Barba and
Petitioners’ second Hinojosa, argument, “an offer not read based had no notice because do they English, upon of their at the June made counsel proof’ hearing Counsel had effect orally difficulty communicating English. they filed; none was. None effect would be stated that a declaration this in the testified, no whatever and there is these three testimony petitioners hand, testified in On the other Fuller record to the assertion. support three could read and the “offer of that all speak response proof’ had for worked at He stated Zavala and plant English. Hinojosa “I I Barba but can’t swear seen testified that he had seen Barba that morning, 5Fuller the issue Barba’s bearing No other evidence was that afternoon.” presented upon injunction. knowledge *16 years, during they some all of which time had in communicated English. apprenticeship training High Barba was in Fuller’s class at Lodi questions School “he understood the and answered them when he gave journeymen read them when we . All tests .. .” three men were foundry, they given paper the and Fuller stated were that instructions on English and had to understand in perform assigned order to their work duties. argument preliminary injunction
Petitioners’ third is that the did not enjoin person an agent, representative individual unless he was an or “acting Molders, at the direction of’ and that the court did not use this merit, language finding argument without contempt. them judgment charged in the expresslyincorporates for the court’s the counts initiating proceedings; these each contempt Fuller declaration the “acting at specificallegation were contain named individuals 164.” agents the direction of authorized officersand of Local D Petitioners contend there was no substantial evidence support judgment certain of them. as to Molders, regarding contempts against As with the same contention carefully relating we have reviewed the to each count and have evidence gamut it from contemptuous found sufficient. The actions ran attempted spitting nonstriking employees into faces of vehicles, windshields, overturning smashing and threats of violence Except and death. repeat supports that such evidence well contempt findings, again there is no need to describe it in detail.
E argument Petitioners’ final findings is that the are invalid injunction for failure to state particular portions preliminary However, alleged that were violated. to the counts the court’s reference again in the Fuller declaration is sufficient. specific
Petitioner Zavala also makes the that his conduct contention (c) alleged in count “could not be a violation of both sub-section *17 sub-section (h) as in the declara- preliminary injunction” alleged tion, and therefore the court. He not found does necessarily contention, elaborate this nor does he his reasons for it. upon explain The two subsections restrained Zavala obstruct- from: “(c) Physically or with the movement of vehicle or ing physically interfering any person enter, leave, or or entering attempting leaving attempting approach- or or or ing attempting approach, departing attempting depart, from in this no premises, plaintiff’s including driveway; picket regard, in shall or walk so before or so as to stop slowly any doorway driveway block the use of the or for more than five seconds. (5) doorway driveway on the of vehicles or streets
“(h) Impeding any any passage persons or sidewalks in front of plaintiff’s premises.”
There no is reason Zavala’s conduct could not be a violation of why both subsections. order,
With to the respect temporary restraining judgment is affirmed. With to the contempt respect preliminary injunction, vacated; as to Antonio in all Barba other judgment contempt these also are affirmed. The order respects, heretofore judgments stay issued is dissolved. J.,P. concurred.
Puglia, REYNOSO, J. concur in With to the I dissent part respect part. order, I dissent from that of the decision temporary restraining portion affirms the union as to counts 40 and which (Molders) contempt against I as a In other concur. With violation). (treated single respects respect I concur in order as preliminary injunction, vacating Barba, However, to Antonio count I dissent from that which 16. portion 43; count Charles affirms order against Tony Hinojosa, 29; Johnson, Zavala, count and Donato count I further from 21. dissent 21 and Molders counts 43 (inasmuch finding contempt against as those are on the In other counts based acts Zavala Hinojosa). I concur. respects,
We deal with the which arise in an area of economic typical pressures established, been warfare we call strikes. Ground rules have particularly The to those are to be the federal how wars waged. by government, that into the federal record indicates issues from this strike were taken courts, the the and into state into local superior headquarters police deal with court. We (1) proceedings against contempt specifically order and out of a (2) Molders contempt arising temporary restraining of a and six individuals out Molders arising proceedings against injunction. preliminary
I Temporary Restraining Order violate The view the order did not that restraining majority temporary A has of Civil section 527.3 is correct. trial court Code Procedure to limit the at the entrances evidence number pickets authority after with has Such interference and been presented. ingress egress was before the court. declaration order before
The that the expired restraining argument temporary is difficult when counsel had continuance hearing stipulated for the dates is I the limitation of protection accept. agree be the time defendant .and not may Accordingly, jurisdictional. waived. knowingly declarations dual contempt initiating objections not that there was and notice Molders gave
proceedings inadequate are more trouble- evidence order substantial support some. situation, are
In a new heated strike when particularly employees will hired “scabs” or “strike breakers” union (called feelings people), or YWCA run Words tones of voice not local high. acceptable not from are YMCA are looks Angry striking employees commonplace. First While are théir unexpected. exercising statutory pickets site, a new will feel Amendment at a strike naturally rights employee some intimidation. It is with that in mind that the orders are reviewed. notice, close,
The issue of while must be resolved adequate against union. It is true that declarations took a employer’s scatter-gun incidents from still to overt approach hitting multiple persons standing Further, acts of violence. it is true that no were included to facts show or other connection the union. between the actors and any agency However, that the union had an were conducted such a hearings way to rebut after the its evidence. adequate opportunity employer presented Thus, there was notice and an to defend. opportunity
The substantial evidence issue is more difficult.
I would vacate the as to counts 40 and 41 as a of (treated finding guilt violation). Count 40 interference with movement of a single alleges however, vehicle driven an of by testimony employee, employee. was as follows:
“A. I drove into the and there were in six the drive. driveway pickets while; there I for a and and They just standing pulled up stopped, then the, know, walked to one side. One of kind they slowly you split one and one went one and the others went the other way way way.
“Q. How did that take? long Oh,
“A. I’d ten seconds.” say maybe Cantu, And count 41 that the same was threatened alleges employee by striker. The is as follows: testimony What did Horace Cantu
“Q. exactly say you? ” said, “A. He ‘I’ll I’ll out back.’ be off watch ten minutes. meet you strike, In the context of a heated the actions to be that of appear pussy cats. The interference with the vehicle or is insufficient to show testimony threats of violence to the employee.
As to the I would affirm. While remaining findings contempt, union, weak, evidence of I believe that the no agency by taking steps or otherwise show has ratified the acts. discipline disapproval, 416 53
Counts and relate to the of nails scattering company 25. An lot on the testified mornings May parking employee that nails were He scattered on 20 and and 25. May May again testified that he was the to arrive on those that on first employee days, arrived, each occasion union were when he and the nails pickets present scattered, had been so that he did not see already actually anyone nails. scattering
Petitioner this circumstantial evidence is insufficient argues union, that inas- support contempt findings against suggesting much as there were at the all who were not called to guards plant night one could conclude that the itself scattered testify, just easily company the nails. It is true that there was no direct evidence as to who scattered the nails. Nor was there evidence that whoever scattered nails did so However, on behest of the union. the combination of motive are sufficient to of the court that the opportunity support finding union was The court’s was buttressed determination responsible. by of harassment the union the strike as well as members pattern by during the failure on the of the union to demonstrate part any disapproval. threat Donato
The last count concerned a finding contempt, *20 Zavala 27. Vierra Vierra on the against Gary morning May employee to a testified stream of conduct continuing intimidating beginning he was hired ón 19. On he walked to the that date as day May company work, to office four or Zavala five go including yelled pickets, invectives which would make even a sailor wince. Vierra was unfriendly that he advised was “not to make it home going tonight.” The Vierra left with one of the and following night supervisors, plant time three carloads of followed them. around for drove pickets They this 20 to minutes until home. about lost and Vierra went they pickets, he Vierra called the next and plant morning, Friday, reported too scared to was come work. week,
When Vierra went to work the verbal threats following (you it and invectives continued. now”) are “really going get Vierra, The of attention no doubt because he was intensity given breaker,” a viewed as “scab” and “strike went beyond clearly levels of Vierra was even a strike situation. acceptable roughness threatened with violence. The union no time showed disapproval it Vierra. this extensive and Accordingly, campaign against long-lasting those acts. ratified
II Preliminary Injunction The were found in The
Six individuals contempt contempt. judgment whom there is no be vacated as to the four individuals should against order, 16, as count of actual I concur that the knowledge. proof However, the order should also Antonio Barba be vacated. Zavala, 21; 43; count as to count Donato be vacated Hinojosa, Tony served; were Johnson, The shows that not count 29. record Charles they was there their testimony neither showing knowledge part. any a next on chair of the order was that a of about was copies placed pile I this for the consider to a served headquarters picketers. pickup are of a notice, “service,” or Criminal contempt proceedings inadequate. more than of notice must be solid Its basis terms serious nature. very in this record. shown set forth I concur and dissent as above.
Accordingly, J., for A a was denied June 1977. rehearing petition Reynoso, that the should be Petitioner’s opinion petition granted. applica- Bird, Court was tion for denied 1977. Supreme July hearing J., Mosk, J., were of the that the should be C. opinion application granted.