Oil Workers International Union v. Superior Court

512 Fink, Ill.App. are: Mendel v. 8 378; v. Hague, Greene 10 598,

Ill.App. 602; v. Erlanger, 158; Tentzer N.Y.S. 117 Men Bona, 410; Cotheal, delson v. 63 Cohen App. N.Y.S.2d v. 156 99]; Storer, Div. 784 N.Y.S. Narbonne 121 v. Minn. 505 [142 835]; Haizlip Rosenberg, N.W. v. 63 Ark. 430 [141 S.W. [39 ; Newman, 59 ; Minn. 156 v. N.W. 60] [60 1085] Rosenfield Montgomery, White & Co. v. 58 204; Ga. Franklin Fire Ins. Noll, Ind.App. Co. 947, v. N.E.2d [58 951]. judgment The is reversed. Shinn, J., P. Vallée, J., concurred. opinion read printed was modified to as above and a

petition for rehearing May denied 1, Respond- 1951. petition ent’s hearing Supreme Court was denied June 1951. No. Dist., Apr. 14088. First Div. One.

[Civ. 1951.] OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION et al., Peti-

tioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA al., Respondents. COUNTY et Condon, Edises, L. Edises, & Bertram Robert Treuhaft Condon, Lindsay Walden, P. Wirin and Fred A. L. Okrand for Petitioners. Jay Goldberg,

Arthur E. Harris, J. Thomas A. Darwin and Fogel, Daniel as Amici Curiae behalf of on Petitioners. Phleger

Brobeck, Burns, Tinning Robert Harrison, & E. & Tinning B. for DeLap, Archibald and Robert Eshleman Respondents. B.), J. (Fred proceeding

WOOD This isa to review an superior order in petitioners which the court found herein temporary restraining had violated order, ad- judged contempt them of court therefor. petitioners

The Union, are Oil CIO, Workers International unincorporated an (hereinafter association called the Interna- Union); tional Local 326 of Oil Workers Union, International CIO, unincorporated (hereinafter an association called Union); individually Local J. Kenny, P. and as vice- first president of the Union; Casey, individually Local Frank M. secretary as financial agent and business of the Local Union; Phillips, Jr., Herman Frank Silva, Harris E. M. Lakeman, Bullock, Montell H. Curtis Page, C. and Walter V. Holt.

The Casey International and the Unions, Kenny, Local are defendants the action in which the order under review issued, brought by an Company action Union Oil enjoin California to the commission certain acts. complaint action, September 13, verified filed

1948, alleged plaintiff operates Oleum, Contra Costa County, petroleum principal gates refinery, opposite with two each Highway (one other and on either side U. No. 40 S. known as the main Tormey entrance) and the other as the and a entrances; refinery number of subsidiary also located the main railroad, line of the Southern Pacific with four railroad delivery entrances for the materials products shipment on spur tracks; necessary, it is business, plaintiff, railway conduct of the company persons doing plaintiff operate with business motor vehicles and trains into and out of refinery; International pro- employed the represent persons Local Unions

and the products, petroleum petroleum and processing and duction defendant by plaintiff; employed including persons so agent representative officer, an and J. Biro Brown officers, agents are named defendants and other International 4, September that on Union; the Local representatives of and refinery; ever since a strike at the 1948, the unions called and agents, representatives and members then defendants their refinery by picketing are standing and now and have patrolling thereto,—at front of the several entrances 80 pickets from 10 to and at main entrance another entrance from 2 to 13 pickets, from 4 to 20 and at the railroad entrance appeared likely whenever that railroad cars were enter or many pickets congregated as 100 leave; at times main by Tormey and their number and entrances intimidated from leaving entering refinery, officers, employees or agents, and persons desiring to enter plaintiff, leave; and or when attempted persons or to enter or leave main vehicles Tormey placed entrance, pickets or the have so themselves physically entrance as to in front obstruct the same prevent persons utilizing and such and from vehicles entrance; September on defendants caused their pickets refinery premises place to enter the and themselves leading upon the rail-track thereto in such manner as to and, plaintiff’s entrance despite obstruct the railroad thereto prevented themselves, to remove the Southern demand Pacific operating a train into Company premises from and caused picking removing up train leave without and 10 tank being petroleum products shipped plaintiff and cars thereby prevented plaintiff prevented and ever since have shipping petroleum products; Sep- plaintiff from said since purpose unlawfully forcing 4, 1948, plaintiff for tember demands, they engaged have to their in an to accede unlawful conspiracy molest, threaten, scheme and intimidate and plaintiff, agents, its employees, coerce officers and and the employees Company persons Pacific or other do- of Southern plaintiff, purpose for the ing preventing business with preventing plaintiff’s refinery, officers, and of operation of working employees preventing thereat and agents and Company continuing and from do Southern Pacific others pursuance purposes and in plaintiff, with of said have business and in the have entrances manner described obstructed the desiring refinery; enter leave persons intimidated and threaten to unless order of defendants restrained the entrances and intimidate court will continue to so obstruct by- desiring prevented be persons leave, to enter or who will leaving; entering physical blockade from intimidation thereby irreparably damaged pre- plaintiff be will bringing ma- carrying business, vented from said from products from refinery, shipping terials and from enjoining the refinery; prayed judgment defendants persons carrying acting under on said scheme them engaging continuing any in or conspiracy and from described, temporary restraining the acts for a order injunction an pendente lite.

On September 13, 1948, superior court, the action requiring court issued an therein order defendants why they enjoined restrained, to show cause should not be during pendency directly indirectly of action, from or committing any following acts:

“1. Intimidating, obstructing, molesting, harrassing or threatening bodily plaintiff’s injury officers,agents, harm or to employees, customers, any or persons having business with plaintiff, attempting or plaintiff, or the serve driver operator any or vehicle, engine entering, train or while attempting enter, leaving attempting or plaintiff’s to leave refinery at Oleum, County, Contra Costa California. Obstructing any any manner plaintiff’s entrance “2. refinery

said Oleum, County, at Contra California, Costa in- cluding any entrance ingress egress used for and from refinery said by pedestrains, vehicles, motor engines or railroad and trains.

“3. Congregating, gathering, massing, demonstrating, marching, picketing, standing, sitting, stationing or maintaining any pickets loitering, walking or persons

or other or at near or in front of yards any or within two hundred en- plaintiff’s trance of at refinery Oleum, County, Contra Costa California, except as provided. hereinafter “4. Maintaining, stationing, placing or more four than pickets persons or other any any at one time at or about plaintiff’s entrance to refinery County, at Contra Oleum, Costa California.

“5. Picketing, or maintaining stationing any or pickets on property plaintiff Oleum, at and from California, marching or loitering property. said

“6. Interfering with the any automobile, movement of trucks, engines railroad or trains, or from other vehicles and any automo- pathway gathering in lying, or standing, which enter or vehicles or other trains trucks, railroad biles, to enter or are about or or leave attempt to enter or leave County, Costa Oleum, Contra refinery plaintiff’s

leave California. any pickets Stationing picket or with the placing or

“7. accomplishing any purpose or for the intention 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and paragraphs 6 above.” enjoined in actions following Immediately cause, show and as a 1‘ pending superior court further Ordered that part it,of foregoing hearing and determination Order them, agents, and each of their Cause the defendants Show officers, employees, members and representatives, servants, hereby be and are restrained pickets and each of them enjoined committing performing directly or in- and directly foregoing by means whatsoever ’’ acts. orders, stipulations, the court made and entered Pursuant to continuing hearing time, on the order to show from time to continuing temporary in full force and effect the cause and restraining order. (filed

The court issued orders to show cause October 1948) Grant, filed J. A. L. based affidavits J. Diehl, Davison, Ritchey, H. Donald Briggs, Robert C. J. Answering H. Heffimen. affidavits filed two G. in and served with persons charged the affidavits the orders to upon presented thus cause. Trial the issues commenced show December 1948. November 26 and concluded taking evidence, of the for Upon the counsel conclusion for continuance of alleged contemnors moved the hear- Procedure, of the Code of Civil and ing, under section 595 Thereupon in support of motion. filed his affidavit alleged proceed for court directed counsel contemnors to objected argument, which counsel with oral to there his prepare present argument. not for or oral sufficient time by thereupon denied the court and matter motion was taken under submission. January finding 12, 1949, the court entered order

On temporary restraining had violated the petitioners contempt in of court order, adjudging them because such violations. validity judgments challenge of con-

Petitioners separate grounds, they each of which, urge, tempt upon six in this hy court this judgments those requires annulment proceeding. presented in which order in the grounds, Those several first point to sixth of their transposition for petitioners, save support is insufficient (1) The evidence position, are: petitioners, certain as to judgments certain of the petitioners’ for violation void (2) the the com- uncertainty of for speech and right of freedom of unions, as (3) the based, upon which plaint affidavits therefore entities associations, are unincorporated court the trial contempt, (4) for guilty of or liable cannot be they because question enjoin the acts jurisdiction to had no the federal which dispute over a labor were committed in government jurisdiction, its courts have exclusive navigable upon of them were committed waters over some government and its courts federal have exclusive which the denying petitioners’ quash jurisdiction, (5) in motion to cer- (assertedly issued subpoenas tain duces tecum affidavits statutory failed, contrary requirements, which to state to show materiality sought), of the documents trial court denied against petitioners protection seizure, unlawful search and (6) denying motion, their conclusion of the taking evidence, for a to enable their counsel continuance prepare present argument, for and to oral the trial court right process right repre- denied them their to due and the They present point counsel. sentation additional Company improperly joined Union Oil California was aas respondent petition in their writ, company that the party party a real in interest nor is neither whose interest directly proceeding, would be affected and that this proceeding be company. should dismissed as to the consider, point

We will their first, that as to some of the charges petitioners and some of the there is a lack of evidence judgments. support will We then consider their other points presented in the order which have them. The evidence, we will asserted lack of discuss connection with judgments charges upon and the the several which each is based. Sufficiency Support

1. The the Evidence to Judgments Several Petitioners. appraising sufficiency the of the pro- In evidence in a ceeding this, inquiry judgment such the is whether or not a holding guilty petitioner contempt supported is court

526 by a supported it is evidence; not whether

by substantial being the function evidence, the it preponderance evidence. weigh the reviewing court, to court, not the trial proceed type in test, for use enunciating this In Court, 14 Cal. Bridges Superior v. Supreme Court ing, our first, principle the attention, 983], directed 464 P.2d 2d [94 court, the trial judgment the review petition “On the review before question sole definitely settled that is to render court jurisdiction of the trial ing is one of court rendi in the If it be determined judgment under review. jurisdic its acted within judgment the trial court tion of said reviewing only inquiry ends, and the order the tion, then affirming proceedings to make one court is authorized hand, appear the other should it court. On of the trial us that the court no as certified to either had the record pronounce judgment, said its jurisdiction to or exceeded doing so, proceedings then the be an jurisdiction should Proc.) just 1075, Code Civ. than as (Sec. .Other nulled. granted of certiorari will not be review indicated, writ Latimer, 1051]), (People v. 160 Cal. 716 P. law errors of [117 (White Superior Court, 110 questions of fact. v. Cal. mere ” 480].) (Pp. 484-485.) P. 60 [42 evidence the trial court enters The before existence jurisdiction of the trial to act. question of the court into Bridges case, passing upon question “in As stated may jurisdiction, reviewing court con trial court’s purpose evidence before trial court sider juris determining give it was sufficient to that court whether guilty judgment finding the accused render its diction to is in court finds that the evidence contempt, and case the judgment. it will annul the sustain the conviction sufficient to Court, 696, 119 413 P. 39 Superior Cal. (McClatchy v. [51 Superior Court, 506 Hotaling 501, v. 191 Cal. 691], L.R.A. Court, 127], Superior Titcomb 29 A.L.R v. 73, P. [217 34, case, 206].) in such a 44 P.2d But 220 Cal. [29 determining is limited to whether there review of evidence before the trial court to sustain any substantial evidence power weigh rests with jurisdiction. evidence Superior Cal.App.2d (Daily Court, 4 v. court. trial 936]; Superior Court, 194 P.2d McFarland v. 127, 134 [40 In 19 P. 1033]; Brambini, re Cal. P. Cal. [218 [228 Court, 216, P. ; Superior 168 Cal. v. [142 Strain 569] ; Superior Court, 110 Cal. 1915D White v. Ann.Cas. 702]

527 Supervisors, Imperial Water Co. v. Board ; P. 64 [42 480] of 485.) p. Cal.2d at 780].)” (14 14 P. 162 Cal. [120 distinguished Buckley, In re 69 The court considered and Superior 191 Cal. 501 69], Hotaling Court, 1Cal. P. v. [10 cited, upon other cases not 73, 127], P. 29 A.L.R. [217 original proceeding an before ground of those that each nature, proceedings Supreme Court,* saying: “In contempt pro- governs trial court in the same rule that ceedings any at the appellate court applicable to this or originally brought in hearing contempt proceedings such repeatedly courts. It been held that accused has an guilty beyond a contempt proved trial for must reasonable be rule, authorities doubt. But such as will be seen above, application proceeding no in a as the one cited has such us, judgment finding before in review of the trial court (14 guilty contempt.” 485.) the accused p. Cal.2d at “In considering the before in the evidence the trial court light of just duty the rule our stated, it is sole to determine whether substantiality such evidence is of sufficient to support judgment conviction, Daily Superior in or as stated v. Court, supra 124) (p. : ‘In proceeding us, before power extent of our inquire is to whether there was evi- ’ ” sustaining dence before jurisdiction. the trial court (14 p. Cal.2d at 486.)

These principles, applicable proceeding this, in such a today are the law in They California. have applied been subsequent a number of decisions of our Supreme ap- pellate courts, approval and cited with in others. question That the sole proceeding such a jurisdic is one review, tion of the trial court to render the judgment under we find stated Superior in Hume v. Court, 17 Cal.2d 512 Taylor ; P.2d v. Superior Court, 20 [110 669] Cal.2d 244 [125 1]; P.2d Rappaport Superior Court, v. 39 Cal.App.2d 15, 20 ; P.2d Superior Associated etc. Lbr. Co. v. Court, [102 526] ; Cal.App.2d 79 582 [180, P.2d In re Oxman 389] (habeas 100 corpus), Cal.App.2d 148, 151 P.2d [223 66]. reviewing may The court examine evidence to determine the jurisdictional question judgment annul the contempt if the justify judgment or, evidence does not conversely, Buckley original proceeding Supreme *The was an ease in the Court. Hotaling proceeding contempt case was a a writ a review superior court, filing an order issued after ease following remittitur, Supreme Hotaling Court’s decision Hotaling, v. Cal. P. [203 745]. erroneously sustained demurrer an order which annul an contempt alleged the sufficiently commission of which affidavit supra, 244, 246). Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d (T aylor v. evidence, jurisdic sufficiency if the court trial had As to reviewing attention is confined to a considera court’s tion or not there was substantial evidence to tion of whether contempt (Rappaport Superior judgment of v. support 22). state, In Court, Cal.App.2d 15, supra, 39 only when will issue an inferior tribunal the writ of certiorari or in its jurisdiction; excess of this writ has acted without appeal writ of error whether an be avail used as a cannot be Superior (reviewing probate v. (Howard Court able 787, of 25 order, judgment contempt), 784, a Cal.2d 788 not a 849]). proceeding upon In a writ of habeas P.2d [154 judgment contempt (a of writ which tests corpus to review a act), upon the is jurisdiction of a lower court burden the necessary papers petitioner file the records and with the the necessary him burden is on reviewing court; the establish the release, presumption regularity of for his and the of grounds support judgment prevails in in the proceedings the Oxman, contrary (In re 100 evidence to the absence of 66]). P.2d In a habeas 148, 150-151 Cal.App.2d [223 petitioner’s of to review a conviction viola corpus proceeding (an antipicketing ordinance ordinance found valid tion of an petitioners part), in in failed to show that part and invalid violating valid they part the the convicted being in of a ordinance; proceeding such a the nature col judgment attack, under review carried with it a the lateral regularity; presump this is not conclusive presumption proving put petitioners the that tion, a burden on but part were based the invalid the their convictions Bell, re ordinance, (In failed to that burden meet 488, 22]). 19 Cal.2d 500 P.2d [122 that there are a few decisions which contain state We note might be inferred test ments from which it that evidence judg Buckley applicable upon case review of a used is apparently stemming from contempt, statements ment Superior Court, Hotaling decisions are: Mattos v. case. These ; Superior Cal.App.2d Court, P.2d Wilde v. 30 641 [86 1056] ; Clarke, Cal.App.2d 168, 177 P.2d In re 60 53 Cal. 560] [127 Court, 21, ; Superior 26 v. 62 App.2d P.2d Groves 92] [140 Felthoven, ; P.2d In 75 Cal.App.2d 568 re Cal. [145 355] Donovan, ; In re App.2d Cal.App. P.2d 94 [171 47] making 2d P.2d comment [210 860]. suggestion of the decisions last with it no that carries reviewing evi wrong may applied the test cited have pri decision was based nearly all, all, In if not dence. contempt alleging affidavit marily upon the fact contempt. In constitute a facts failed to state sufficient reviewing court found total absence case, Wilde (53 Cal. the material facts. support evidence of one of p. 180.) reviewing court’s App.2d, case, at In Clarke any “sub examination an absence of of the record disclosed facts. tending material prove stantial evidence” one of the. (60 Cal.App.2d, p. 32.) at contempt serially, judgments of view the several willWe connection based, is and in upon which each charges with the iden- sufficiency of the evidence. We questioned with each person whose affidavit by the name of judgment tify each referring “com- to the affidavit proceeding, initiated ’’ (cid:127) plaint. restraining order temporary complaint states Each September 13, 1948; sets by the court forth was issued all in haec verba and states that of the order provisions been full the order has force mentioned times alleges each at all times mentioned effect; and knowledge had of the order and alleged contemnors notice alleged each of the individual contemnors provisions; agent times mentioned has been a member and at all is and such; all acted as and that each and at times of each union intentionally willfully, violated the order alleged contemnor allegations unlawfully. complaint put of The each and by answering affidavits, except membership that in issue the petitioners in each union was admitted and the individuals of to II Casey and the Local Union their answer count one of of (not complaints herein) under review the one the Hemmen Casey agent an expressly admitted that “Frank M. is ... of Casey answering 326.” verified the affidavits behalf Local on capacity. well in his individual of the Local Union as as by complaint, Grant, The A. Grant an affidavit J. filed September 1948, 27, alleged, thereof, peti- in count III (and Phillips and persons tioners the Local Union other named) temporary restraining Septem- violated 17, 1948, threatening ber the train crew of a Southern bodily threatening train with harm Pacific railroad and to with rocks and to other strike crew use violence on them refinery; if train into drove the the train crew operate through about to the train an entrance to from plaintiff and haul tank cars

refinery do with to business and acts the of threats refinery; and that reason said operating the train and refused prevented from train crew was refinery or to transact business with operate to into plaintiff. allegations Phillips, true

The court found these Union, and members the strike Local its officers of com- Local, adjudged Phillips and the Local mittee of the and guilty authority court. As contempt Union of of the of the punishment union therefor, pay directed the court Phillips, if $50, Phillips $25; fine and a fine he of defaulted imprisoned county payment fine, jail to be in the his day’s imprisonment rate of for $2.00 one each fine.* shows that on the afternoon September evidence brought engine Pacific train crew an Southern and purpose entering

caboose from Rodeo to Oleum the for premises respondent’s refinery taking and out some tank vicinity railroad ears. The tracks run close to the Bay. shore As approached San Pablo this train a certain stopped switch and was purpose unlocking and opening switch, with men lying boat it was sign 25 feet offshore. The boat had a iton “Picket” or “Picket Boat.” When stopped the train and the trainmen got approached it, out and open switch to unlock and rocks were thrown from (one men in the boat. Edmister boat) the men in the up testified that when train came stopped switch, and he told them picket there was a there and “we” go in, didn’t want them to and that he threw some rocks, they (the trainmen) got engine in the switch (in rode back Phillips Edmister) to Rodeo. the boat with denied he threw nobody rocks said else (nobody except Edmister) threw rocks that he saw. How- ever, persons three who were standing near the switch and recognized knew Phillips, rocks, testified that did throw he and that some dozen to rocks were thrown. This is sub- stantial evidence of rock throwing Phillips.

Petitioners’ other respect contention in Phillips is that there was no evidence that he had knowledge or notice con- *The complaint court dismissed counts one two of the Grant persons charged because the thereunder did not have notice knowl- terms, edge order or its and for like reason dismissed persons Phillips count three as to than Local Union. during Count four was dismissed the trial.

581 provi- any of its cerning temporary restraining order or any knowledge having It he denied such sions. is true that testimony However; that on that occasion notice. there is or they sup- men in boat were not deputy told the a sheriff yards rocks, they 200 from posed to and that had to be throw Phillips hearing Company property. denied the Union Oil any such He boat close inshore statement. admitted the was but said did hear that Edmister he not even the conversation anybody anyone shore; anything had with on did hear not shore; yelling said on he was at Edmister was throw- the time yelling that Edmister was at ing rocks did not recall and quite uncertain there was was at first whether time. He Edmister, anyone in the beside himself and said else boat fellow, maybe more, may have been another two there finally it, could not and best recollection was that swear his there were others that boat beside himself and Edmister. duty positive, however, picket He was he done had not 17). earlier in the trial he tes- (Sept. But date to this prior complaint) I and II of the Grant (in counts tified relation September occasions, September 15 and previous on two Bay. Pablo On the 15th in a boat on San been out he had sign, which a “Oil Workers’ cruiser, carried in a cabin he was ’’ sign September 5. The put a on the boat on Boat, he Picket put and it on the given him the union he sign was picket continuously, put and off upon it on boat; keep did it on working. given him for gas for that boat was occasion. 5 testimony September between he said that In his earlier up channel, and barges came picketed 15 he in; Vallejo, coming a was tankers, whenever boat also over coming, bay 15th noticed train out in the on the went sign boat and put picket Oleum on the went to then there, come; with the train saw a locomotive waited for stayed offshore; tracks, on and a small there fellows boat maybe hour, longer; did not hear conver- half an a little persons in the small boat. sation 16, according Phillips’ testimony, September On earlier bay boat, persons, he was out in the in a smaller with five other any luck; they fished for some time without noticed train approaching put went Oleum, Rodeo so to Oleum picket sign come; the boat waited for the train to signs were in fishing; these the boat started before lying opposite boat offshore the switch some minutes arrived; before train had been for out two half they approached two when hours Oleum when purpose picketing train; that that the train said Costa, Mr. boat, arrived the front of the and about or something Phillips, got up feet from and said to the trainmen ‘ ’’ you open going Phillips about ‘Are switch ? but did said, any reply. not hear what else Costa nor Mr. He saw day 16th) Eshleman that and knew Eshleman (the that Mr. said something, Eshleman, but could not hear could not hear words, although Phillips hearing admitted his was all right. testimony by

There was the witness Creed that when the trainman (Sept. unlocked the switch 16) and the boat was within about 10 feet of shore, said, Costa “Don’t throw switch,” going “You anything are not take out refinery”; of the that the asked, trainman “Is that a threat?” and Costa said “Yes.” Creed further following testified that just the event described, on 16th, Eshleman, standing Mr. near the switch, close to the edge, stepped up water’s asked these men in if injunc- boat knew there was an tion and court forbidding any interference with trains in, out or to which replied, Costa any “That doesn’t make going any You’re not take out”; difference. cars the bow shore; was about 10 feet from the boat Creed was some 30 switch, of the feet north about 35 to 40 Costa, feet from heard what Costa and the trainman said, and heard what testimony by Eshleman This said. Creed was corroborated by the witnesses-Grant and Diehl. Diehl said that Eshleman shouted, and the witness Eber testified that Eshleman cupped his hands and hollered. supports

This evidence implied finding of the trial court Phillips heard the conversation between Costa and the trainman and the concerning information restraining by order furnished It Eshleman. is a reasonable inference information, given that such under those circumstances to an member-picket active such as Phillips, produced in his mind requisite knowledge pertinent provisions of the restraining knowledge order. This acquired he during and at the conclusion of his boat-picketing activities on the 16th prior but to those of the 17th September.* The knowl- concerning *The evidence the events that occurred on the 15th and September 16th of -was available for consideration the court in rela- picketing tion to the which occurred on the 17th of that month because during parties stipulated that, later the trial as to all of the wit- case, nesses who testified testimony more than once all of their applied (each charge the other matters could be to each count or complaint temporary order). of a violation judicial in a to an issue material may have when edge' person It differs other fact. proven to be is a fact proceeding is a state phenomena that it objects and physical heard seen, cannot be or consciousness mind like belief may It persons. directly observed other otherwise or statement or admission the affirmative be evidenced have such says did not or he it. If he is silent possessor by his ways, g., e. may in other be evidenced knowledge, it him in given the information was by proof that or conduct document, orally he heard the he read writing and ‘‘ like state person, of mind of made. state statement proved a fact be like body, is condition of the case, person an issue in and the when is relevant to fact himself may testify directly thereto. (See 29 ^[20] Am.Jur. which an act was 312.) intent with Whenever the motive or testimony although relevant, admissible, direct is done is 396, (Harned Watson, v. 17 Cal.2d 403 P.2d conclusive. [110 6, 178 9 ; Co., v. North Pasadena Land etc. Cal. Gilmour 431] Winbigler, 149, v. 175 156 P. 1066]; Horton Cal. P. [165 [171 Powell, Cal.App.2d 28, ; ; 66 33 P.2d Karr v. [151 576] 423] §1870; Proc., 1 Jones on Evi Code Civ. Commentaries see Am.Jur., 20 dence, seq.; Cal.Jur., Evidence, 117; 10 170 et § §§ 338; C.J.S., Evidence, 178.) Evidence, Also, 31 when § § important bearing knowledge issues, aof fact has question is admissible which relates to evidence knowledge range of such or nonexistence and a wide existence (Katz 319, proof Bedford, is allowed. v. 77 Cal. 323 of 523, 826]; Imp. 1 L.R.A. Central H. v. P. Co. Memorial [39 Inc., Cal.App.2d 596]; Parks, 591, 40 609 P.2d Code see [105 20 Proc., 1870; Cal.Jur., Evidence, 118; Am.Jur., 10 Civ. § § Evidence, 336; C.J.S., Evidence, §178.)” (Cope 31 v. § Davison, 193, 30 200 873, 667].) Cal.2d P.2d 171 A.L.R. [180 range proof therein cited indicate the wide The authorities of Bedford, 523, In Katz 319 allowed. v. 77 Cal. P. 1 L.R.A. [19 826], party present a evidence that and saw certain work tending payment done was deemed material as to show that objection by work without was made him for that “with knowl edge qual in of manner which the work was done and its ity.” (P. 323.) 80 Whittier, In Treadwell v. P. Cal. 574 [22 (cited 266, 5 20 Am.St.Rep. 175, Am.Jur., 13 L.R.A. in 498] Evidence, 336), evidence defendants were cautioned § by repaired skilled mechanic who had their elevator that they running carelessly, “competent were was held knowledge by material to show a defendants that 534 incautiously carelessly.” (P.

operating 602.) the elevator intention, belief, “the men feeling, Whenever or other ... person particular tal of a at a time is material to state trial, person’s an issue under evidence of such declarations the time then state indicative of his mental are admissible in (Estate Carson, 437, evidence.” 184 445 5, Cal. P. [194 of 312.) A.L.R. cited in 239], prosecution 17 20 Am.Jur. In a receiving contradictory property, stolen statements questions concerning defendant and evasive answers owner ship acquired property the manner which he are evidentiary knowledge guilty acquisition. of at the time of (People v. Smith, 26 Cal.2d 854 941].) gen P.2d These [161 proof principles knowledge applicable eral of of are course contempt proceeding type proceeding. as (See Brambini, In re P, 192 Cal. 569], 36-37 [218 Superior v. Court, Cal.App.2d Sorrell 73 194 80].) P.2d [166 we intent, As element of must bear mind that “Dis judgment, order, lawful process obedience contempt authority court” is as statute defined (Code Proc., 1209.) the court. Civ. ap When it § pears person substantial evidence that a an committed act proscribed by a did lawful order of court and so with knowl edge of that pertinent provisions, and its there is sub support evidence that will a finding stantial of an intentional (See Superior order. Court, violation Hume v. 17 669], Jarvis, 512-13 Cal.2d P.2d and In re 57 Cal. [110 P. App. 533, 494].) cite In Donovan, Petitioners re [207 Cal.App.2d 860], holding something P.2d [210 by way proof required contempt more in a pro intent ceeding. injunction We not so do read that decision. The mandatory character, involved was there hence not force pending appeal, contempt an and pro the order in the made ceeding finding negatived contained no which a belief that the injunction pending appeal. was unenforceable the Here the restraining order was in full force and effect finding and the allegations all Phillips that as complaint findings true included he that committed these acts with knowledge they that were forbidden order of court and willfully that he did intentionally. so and judgment contempt against We conclude that the entered Phillips on complaint supported Grant was substantial evidence and jurisdiction that trial court had to render judgment. that Briggs, by L. complaint, J. an affidavit Briggs The and International alleged 1, 1948, that

filed October Harry Silva, and Prank M. Madden, A. Unions, Harold Local Oleum, violated 22, 1948, September Lakeman, E: on crew the train they threatened restraining order bodily Company with Pacific of the Southern railroad train threw and crew with rocks strike the attempted to harm and freight cars switching was while the crew rocks at the crew through plain- an entrance driving the train preparatory from the haul tank cars refinery, thereafter to tiff's Oleum prevented crew was acts the train refinery; by reason of which the re- operate train into refused to operating, plaintiff. with the finery business transact except Mad- allegations true, found all of the court knowledge of alleged had neither notice nor den at the time dismissed as to provisions; order or of its guilty adjudged union, each and Lakeman Madden; and Silva authority punishment court. As contempt pay therefor, the court ordered the International Union $75; and and Lake- $50; fine of the Local Union a fine of Silva man a fine of each. $25 engine picketing was a case of a switch and caboose

This September 22, It occurred afternoon 1948. boat. on the gone bay, Silva and’Madden had out on the from near Rodeo. going testified he knew the move Silva train to make that (Rodeo plant), to Oleum to haul tank cars into the knew the schedule, got there train took train’s before the did. He boat, three or four rocks in the all needed. When the train line, arrived, his boat was out about 70 feet from the main 10 or 15 feet from the shore. He had turned his outboard rowing. up seat, motor off and was Madden rear stood on the facing figured engine shore. Silva when the came couple far rocks, it was time to throw a and told Madden caboose, to hit When stopped, the trainmen. the train Silva told Madden to let them have it. One rock hit the caboose engine. and one Then blew, that, the whistle said Silva, on, meant there was a threat a threat from those two thought maybe rocks; they (he Madden) Silva could do way, it,” train”; did stopped “we “we there argument finally was an shore, then between men pulled evidence, by train out. This is substantial Silva himself, testimony addition to persons of four who shore, recognized witnessed these events from the each of whom 536 man handled and Madden as

Silva as the man who the oars who threw the rocks. injunction or having any knowledge of the

Silva denied 22d; provisions knowledge such on the said he had no until him deputy sheriff about 6 or he had told it October after concerning with papers Yet, been served five it. earlier times in testifying concerning trial, partici- events which he pated on 15 September and asked when he did find out about testified, on injunction, remember, he “I don’t but later I did think [deputy find out. I Mr. Carlson some- sheriff] body maybe me, was, say, about, told I say, should a week this I am happened, maybe; or so after [on 15th] said, testimony, sure now.” Confronted with this he “You I must remember said I sure what wasn’t time it was— ’’ might might might week, weeks, be a be two be three weeks. picketing; picketed

He had he had been active testified refinery during gate the main the first week of the strike, gate pedestrian September, and the after the 15th of might (placards on which he those occasions have seen notices inches, setting injunction, II inches forth the text of the posted gates 14), pay September at or near did not but pictures himself, attention them. with a Shown picket standing sign, pedestrian gate (on 27), near the Sept. always bit, he said and talk stop he would a little if there always place he saw an opening, found where there was every up an opening; picket time came line he always placed opening, he where himself there was an so he picket sign had a in his hand. difficulty reading English,

He said he had but read that he English switching a little bit connection his work, with during eight years lists used him he had worked as a company’s brakeman for plant locomotive, prior to which years company’s he had equip- worked about on the railroad refinery. ment and trucks within the Asked if he could read more than placard (posted the word “Notice” on the at the refinery entrances), which produced court, said, was he “Yes, if I getting further, close to it.” Asked to read ‘‘ ‘ read, refinery he protected by This you are-’ you How pronounce By do that word?” “ court, “Injunction.” Silva continued reading, ‘Octo- ber 1948, in the case of Oil Company’—at the Union time, my eyes getting blurred, are Your Honor.” That was working knowledge demonstration of a of English, written spoken. well as Casey four or Frank used see he testified, also, that He secretary and business day. was financial (Casey a five times a member of its strike commit- Union, and of the Local agent restraining order on copy the with a of was served tee, and of indication ac- Further Silva’s September.) of the 14th “Off by certain issues of tivity furnished picketing is by pub- prepared the mimeographed a news bulletin Stream,” by bearing legend the “Issued The licity Strike committee, and Union, during portion a of Committee,” of Local at least heading period. 9-19-48, issue under the The dated the strike Boats,” union that “Frank “Picket told the members of the toughest jobs has one of the in this He’s in Silva strike. charge responsible of the keep- ‘tank Car Pickets.’ He’s ing refinery—and they’re the tank cars in still there! boys gates they First the picketed tracks; onto the then moved yards, they picketed tracks; were back 200 so on the cops ran tracks, SP them off the so now 6 boatloads take turns picketing the switch, Bay. from the opera- Our water-borne far; a tion is success so and Frank said ‘We intent hold ’ that line. Keep up good We believe work, will. Frank and Crew!” The issue dated 9-22-48 of Off Stream men close drawing a of four in a boat offshore from a carried standing up throwing track, fish, two rocks at railroad and ‘‘ by sign reading, yards, the track Oleum Gate a S.P.R.R. by In Co.,” heading, “We Picket Land and Sea.” ‘‘ appears sea-going of issue news item: Our the text the Nelson ‘switch-pickets’—not to be confused with and Swan job. company on the But the moved two fleet—were picket past Carpenter Shop. hill up around and tank ears up realize, happening, didn’t what was pickets above thing get word down to switch-boat. So the first didn’t boys knew, in the two tank were out on the main boat cars having gate by track, come out Edeleanu Plant.” Marcos, president the Local Union testified that he did charge captain not know whether was a Silva the boats: Fishing he heard referred to “Admiral of Silva responsibilities but think Fleet,” did not Silva had the any keeping in, the tank cars more than other member the Local. that he injunction Silva’s admission found about the out or so 15th of week after the September was made in presence judge, very the trial who fact ap- could praise and evaluate the admission reviewing as a court cannot reading do from the typewritten mere record. The wit- question his evasiveness speaking manner of ness’ given by conduct the trial knowledge constituted evidence concerning judge the witness as to his state mind acquired by knowledge it him. Additional cir- when was fact that of the cumstances were the notices posted commencing refinery Sep- all entrances to the 15, according tember that after September to Silva’s testimony, picketed pedestrian gate he at the whenever he always found an he opening opening, and that found an may pay that he have seen those notices but did not atten- given by tion to them. an admission Such a witness under was substantial those circumstances evidence which the might finding September trial court base its that on 22 Silva knowledge pertinent had provisions of the restraining opportunity injunction order. Proof of to know through signs gates, alone, at the is However, not sufficient. stretching credulity human to the utmost to believe that Silva, standing pickets, and the other around and near the posted notices, indulge curiosity would not their natural and signs, look at the unless were situation such as referred to People in Brown, v. 74 Cal. 306 P. 1], where the court [16 concerning proof knowledge part said on of a re- ceiver of property, stolen “If a ease could arise ... in which appear suspected it should that he the fact and abstained from knowledge inquiry know, lest he might should be inferred.” (P. any 310.) perhaps While one of the circumstances above might justify mentioned, standing alone, an not inference of knowledge injunction, of the all of them together, taken con- light in plant’s entrances, sidered the situation at th'e very make such an inference a reasonable one. testimony

Lakeman, his others, own and that of a boat, offshore, during was alone in these occurrences on the during 22d. Several witnesses testified that these occurrences cruising shore, Lakeman was in and out near and that he yelled persons shore, calling to on them “scabs” and “rats.” signs Several witnesses saw on several of the boats. There were five day; boats offshore of switch that in, close two the others further signs out. One identified witness as “Picket” but none identified including those boats as Lake- man’s, sign and one saw no on Lakeman’s. Lakeman testified picket he had sign boat, no on seeing his and did not recall any on the other boats. He said he went in his out boat to find if caught any fish; others had he had been out about 45 min- hour, when, nearing utes an Oleum, he over came toward recognized on, and going was see what boats to these other one refinery fence, hollered at knew inside the he two men and called the other doing in there asking what he was of them stayed track; around he was a train on “rat”; there ; the boats recognized in one of hour; Silva three-quarters to an only were; purpose his the others in the boats know who didn’t that he heard some length of time was staying in there that who going work and wondered boys were back to of the (the day 22d) he had denied that on that were. He restraining order; earlier in knowledge but notice .of in boat with 16th he was the trial testified that hollered at Phillips, switch, that Costa Costa and near the switch, fellow not touch the and the one of the trainmen you recall said, going do?”, and did not “What are testimony conversation; portion in of his said more supposed something said he heard Eshleman was to have he, Lakeman, but did hear Eshleman’s voice. He Costa duty before; couple early picket said he had done of times dormitory gate plant, in a the strike at the once 22d; boat about a week before the said his duties for the union get hall, get gasoline fish and take them over to the fishing for the outboard motors at the Port of Oakland for the out; gasoline boats that went that he handled boats gasoline Joseph’s, Rodeo, purchased near to donate to union, fishing, for the used boats to do the he did not know picketing Here, if it was used the boat motors or not. Phillips complaint, as in the case of under sub- the Grant supporting finding evidence stantial the trial court’s Lakeman, charged Briggs knowledge complaint, had provisions, notice bystander upon that he was no mere of the vio- the occasion picketing lent of the train Silva and Madden. judgment against

We conclude that the of contempt entered Briggs complaint supported by Silva and Lakeman on the evidence, jurisdiction substantial and that the trial court had judgment. to render that Diehl, complaint, by

The Diehl an affidavit Robert C. alleged International filed October that Union Silva, Stanley and Prank M. the Local Union Shulman Oleum, 27, 1948, September violated Coppa, and Prank at temporary restraining by throwing at and rocks damaging refinery and did engine plaintiff a switch at the of intimidate, molest, to, bodily harass and threaten harm throw Diehl, Norton, rocks at Robert C. John John Salmond Grant, employees plaintiff

and J. A. on the of who were then refinery property plaintiff. of except allegations court found all Shul- of true that knowledge

man did at that time re- have notice or of the straining provisions; order or of its as dismissed to Shulman adjudged guilty each contempt union and of the Silva of authority punishment of the court. As therefor the court ordered the pay $75; International Union the Local to fine of $100; Union fine and Silva a fine of $50. sup- probably

Substantial evidence was adduced that would port judgment complaint if facts to stated sufficient show on by its face re- enjoined the commission of acts straining question alleged order. The is whether not the or threatening bodily throwing harm to and of rocks at certain plaintiff’s employees prop- refinery “who then were on the erty plaintiff” were acts forbidden order. they not, If complaint allege failed to the commission of acts which constituted disobedience of order.

If those acts order, they were forbidden were for- provisions bidden paragraph. first But paragraph single ais sentence which concludes with the words entering, “while attempting enter, leaving attempt- or ing plaintiff’s refinery leave . .” at Oleum . those Do words limit everything precedes in that them sentence ‘ ‘ merely immediately or preceding opera- words, driver or any vehicle, tor engine or train”? It seems clear that modify limit and everything that is said in that sentence. significance natural That is their when the sen- one reads Any reading other limi- tence as whole. would result no place officers, tation of “plaintiff’s molestation agents, employees, customers, any persons having or attempting plaintiff, plaintiff.” business with serve .to “ plaintiff” [Hjaving business with not a limitation as person might place. plaintiff any A have business with at place question in the state. Then there would be whether “having plaintiff” applies “plaintiff’s business with of- ficers, agents” “employees.” not, provision If apply order would at employees to the officers and when plant home, vacation, or at at or on work time and place in the state. intent No to make an order of such a wide sweep reasonably can court, especially be ascribed to the trial gravamen complaint when the and of the action in support affidavits filed application the restrain-

541 ing was the plant order obstruction of entrances to the and traffic in plant. interference with and out of the alleged In the case of an contempt occurring outside presence charging court, of the the affidavit contempt must contempt. state which constitute If it so, facts fails to do acquire jurisdiction judgment the court does not to render a clearly thereon, may no how matter evidence at the trial (Hutton judicial process. of demonstrate a violation v. Superior Court, 409]; 147 Cal. 159 P. Wilde v. [81 Cal.App.2d Superior Court, 560].) P.2d [127 therefore, conclude, that because of the failure of the We allege enjoined by the commission of complaint acts Diehl judgment restraining order, the entered thereon was with- and should be annulled. jurisdiction out complaint, Davison an affidavit The J. H. Davison alleged 14, 1948, the International that Union filed October Union, Casey, Gough- Frank and M. Charles C. and the Local September 27, 1948, Oleum, Rodeo, at and ian, violated bodily that threatened harm to intimidated, obstructed, molested and harassed Williard (a Corporation), of R. T. Collier contractor H. Frietas J. (employees Hall T. Ahnberg, H. and L. of R. Davison, O. G. employees said contractor and of Corporation); that Collier delivery attempting accept were Corporation Collier refinery transport a at the railroad plaintiff quantity coke; of reason Rodeo, a of said acts ear, at employees named, Corpo- the Collier persons from transporting the coke and from prevented ration plaintiff. with transacting business allegations except found all of the true court any provisions Goughian did not violate re-

Charles order; Goughian; adjudged as to straining dismissed Casey guilty contempt authority union each punishment therefor, As the court ordered court. pay $100; a fine Union to the Local International Union Casey a fine of $125; $50. fine of complaint under this The evidence demonstrates interfer- an prevention attempt, Sep- on the 27th ence with employees, contractor, and a tember, 1948, of of the R. T. Corporation petroleum- to remove carload of Collier coke plant. Davison, company, Oleum of the Collier from the tes- ramp along arrived at a the railroad tified he track near morning, purpose cleaning 8 in the for the Rodeo at about readying loading gondola point. car and it for at This pit in about an hour went to the coke re- he did and refinery spondent’s and there waited for two trucks to arrive At about 10:30 a. m. the trucks arrived and from San Jose. (with superintendent company) Collier Hall, Davison of the they gondola found ramp Rodeo, returned to the where the from along ramp moved the track about 75 feet the had been ear jacks car used to move the were the water and certain by. They slough preparing near commenced to move by use place opposite ramp car back in the of a winch and a shack under or near a cable. Hall had entered or shed equipment ramp operate the electrical and Davison was to they handling cable, approached by when were outside recognized They Davison some men whom as strikers. asked doing. replied, “Loading Davison what he was He coke.” names, but know recognized He several of them did not their Casey. yanked Frank One of them the cable out other than corner hands; group proceeded Hall in the of his then Casey they said, getting shack; surrounded him. “We are every day, hungrier get and we meaner hungrier we getting morning, mean get, and we are God-damn so any you attempt here, if to load coke we will fellows anybody you, your got beat the hell out of drivers or that’s thing to do with this coke haul.” Davison and a God-damn they nothing had explain Hall tried to to them to do with union, grievance and no with the the coke the strike getting rightfully and belonged they to them were what was they were told that did make difference. theirs. But not refinery. got Then Hall out of the shack and went toward the left, attempted put After Hall Davison the cable back into get right way, it railroad he could the shack to off the by Casey apparently stopped load coke. He was that, get here,” doing and “to hell and told out Casey allow Davison to would not alone.” stuff “Leave that ramp and went away. then left the Davison tools put the stayed until the truck loaded highway; there to the over Freitas, the driver of the did, itWhen arrived. with coke seeing there was no highway, parallel to the truck, pulled off were other All the time there dump it into. car to railroad truck ar- ramp. At the time at the gathering strikers there men, 60 and estimated up rived, Davison counted Freitas and gathered around group A 100 there. at least gone he had truck because upset him would told put truck said, “Let’s line. Two or three picket over him and let tip it over before we the truck driver back inside pleaded with coke.” Davison then dig himself out refinery go let back to the men, asking them to the truck driver to there, they permitted the dump load refinery. get go direction of the the truck and in the back he put back, when again attempted the cable Davison then Casey the hell stopped by again get Frank and told to highway. up property, off Davison went of this so back only stayed deputy couple sheriff arrived, Then a he but yards then ear about parked minutes and left his ramp. south Davison then went talked then deputy, ramp, returned toward the and was addressed calling time, strikers who him from time threatened him scab, saying they him up teach should beat him throwing a lesson. later, A little some of started them rocks, and them hit light one of and broke a bulb a standard ramp. deputy near up Another and re- sheriff drove mained for by along about A minutes. ear drove highway, the man in taking pictures. Rocks were thrown car; at that several Shortly rocks car. thereafter, hit the Hall Ahnberg and Mr. company up the Collier from drove direction of wagon. got Oleum a station Davison in the car Casey with them. spoke them; again spokes- to he was man group. of the said, you try He going “Are to load to any coke?” said, today.” Hall Casey “Not said, you “Are going try ever to any to going load coke while the strike said, on?” Hall “I certainly try am going not and load to any coke under talking Casey these conditions.” While was Hall, to quite hollering there were a few at the same time and threatening tip to over car in, three were and several of them rocking were car, Davison, As tilting it. Hall Ahnberg and away (about day) drove noon of that rocks were thrown their couple at car and a rocks hit the car. They went back to the refinery, Davison pit, to the where coke he was about 15 Later, minutes. Jose, he returned to San going past ramp near Rodeo about 1 o’clock. On their way through back Rodeo Jose, toward San there was no one ramp. around the testimony Hall’s substantially was same as Davison’s

concerning happened what Hall ramp while was at the with Davison. He further testified when, response that to Casey’s inquiry, Hall said he coke, Casey intended to move said, “You going are not to morning; move coke this I will have men says down two you minutes that won’t move coke,” Casey and that turned around and told someone had boys. Hall testified he go get hall up

to and Hall before the com- previously Casey, met when was strike on the during this discussion couple times, and mittee a you to “We awful nice Casey Hall, 27th said to have been move this asking you not to respects in a and we are lot of (Hall Davison) way,” we and were coke in a nice and that they hell moving coke, would beat the out ramp, and the rest if he down to all truck driver came that, threat,” Casey “That said, is a around, of us were and Hall it, to which and asked Hall what he intended to do about going go up have what he was said he would to find out refinery do; ramp to then Hall and went left then Ahnberg (vice-president company) where of the Collier Hall was. he and September Davison testified that about headquarters, met at union’s with the strike committee meeting Goughian, among others, Marcos Casey, which were in attendance. the coke

Freitas testified that as he drove his truck into pickets pit refinery stopped by was at the en- area at the he going trance do. He who wanted to know what he was going haul Cor- told them he was coke for the Collier some poration. They he there, told him he wasn’t allowed replied his said local teamsters’ union San Jose go through he picket could and he in. While line went being up his coke, truck was loaded with two ears drove stopped highway by, men asked on the near one running trucking part who was went there. Freitas the. they they going talk to him them and him to allow told weren’t they desperate to haul it. quite coke and about They just him 1,100 they told desperate men, there were didn’t him “Well, intend let coke, said, haul and he They warning said, only haul it.” are not I intend to “We ’’ away. you, threatening you, and As are then drove we area, loading highway pit from the after he entered the coke him pickets reception. he in for a warm truck, his some told ramp noted, when He then drove down near Rodeo and to the got gondola ramp, ear he there, he that the was not at so just ramp. people over stopped front of the came Some him, including and talked Freitas talked to man who pit, near coke and who in the ears back others were two refinery. They you said, at the “We warned not to come might just here,” down and “We as well turn over.” truck back,” said, go And them there some of “Let’s let them and argument pro con, was and Davison and came over Mr. go finally they let Freitas back unload talking, and started (at refinery), Freitas’ which Freitas did. estimate were, ramp. near the He roughly, 60 men at and there any ramp He went did not see officers near the at time. refinery, picket back no interference at encountered returning. unloading, line in After he had some lunch and way refinery was there On his at close onto an hour. Jose) passed ramp home San he at Rodeo about (toward 12:30 ramp or was no at the that he o’clock. There one could see at that time. Goughian

Davison Hall identified Tom as one of those loading at present, portion ramp least a at the time, on 27th, being and Hall identified McKeown near the ramp trips ramp. Casey on one of Hall’s was financial secretary agent, and business and a member com- strike mittee, of the Local Union. He was served with the order to show cause and September 14, 1948. on Goughian and McKeown were members of the committee strike of the union and were served Sep- with those two orders tember 15. Casey being ramp denied near the on the around 10:30 27th morning

in the or except time for a between 11 time 12 o’clock; having any denied knowledge of the events related Davison; said he was not when there Davison and Hall working were cable; on the winch and did not even know Hall Davison, although Freitas, may he have seen one of them him; sometime but did not know said he had never heard such him, Casey; statements that were ascribed to that he morning was at the union somebody hall that said there (at was trouble over ramp) there over, and he came over, stayed drove not over 30 minutes, in his sat car all but minutes, about 5 directly then went back to the union hall in He Rodeo. said approximately he saw 15 people there, pres- there; ent that he parked ramp about 50 feet from the Mattos, a union member, came over to his car and said the trouble was all over. Petitioners claim against Casey the evidence is too slight judgment. to sustain the predicate They this claim

upon Casey’s denials and points conflicts on incidental produced by the testimony of other witnesses, such as the deputy (who estimate two sheriffs at or near were ramp a part time) but people that about 25 (instead there to 100 estimated Davison, Hall judgment supports the Freitas). which and But the evidence resolving was of the conflicts substantial, is and the function reviewing The court. court, the trial not that a that of testimony, deter- judge witnesses, heard their trial saw the testimony credibility, weighed of each' mined their with that the others. by ramp question presented the fact that this

A further respondent’s from about one mile Oleum and near Rodeo is made refinery. the acts done the threats at Were scope proscribed within the territorial of acts ramp near the restraining paragraph order 1 The temporary first already indicated, order, we have concludes with the that attempting leaving at- phrase entering, enter, "while or plaintiff’s refinery Oleum, leave at Contra Costa tempting to California,” phrase clearly County, that modifies all paragraph precedes paragraph. Similarly, the it in that sixth enjoins' (which movement of automo- interference with the vehicles) biles, trucks, concludes railroad trains qualifying phrase attempt "which leave or with the enter or plaintiff’s re- or leave or are to enter leave enter about finery Oleum, County, If all Contra Costa California.” only episode happened connection with this occurred ramp, Oleum, petitioners’ at the a mile distant claim proscribed restraining order would such acts were probably good. happened. no all be But that is means loading gondola is not interference with the It charge. gist car It is inter- near that is the Rodeo concerning, removal of with, ference and the threats concerning refinery. testimony coke from the The of Freitas refinery given premises him warnings the threats and at the moving coke), coupled given (against with the threats by Casey (at ramp), by the Hall followed Davison and by suffering dump (compromised Freitas threats to the truck did), quite he refinery, to haul the coke back to the which clearly produced judge trial conviction in the mind of the beyond consti- doubt that this series of events reasonable intimidating, single transaction, that obstruct- tuted' but a doing ing, molesting harassing persons business with entering refinery, respondent leaving while entering interfering and leav- with the movement of truck Casey (who refinery, had and knowl- ing the' and that notice active edge provisions) order and its an participant The proscribed therein and directed activities. judge finding. The trial made support such a would evidence reviewing reweigh the A court cannot evidence finding. finding. trial had to disturb that court and undertake against judgment it entered jurisdiction to render the which Casey complaint. on the Davison Hem- complaint,

The Hemmen an affidavit G. H. alleged 14, men, 1948, filed that the International October Casey, M. Union and the Local Union and Prank James P. Kenny, Holt, Bullock, Stanley Shulman, Walter V. Montell H. Phillips, Jr., Kierstad, Herman C. Clifford El- Page, Curtis Smart, E. Silva, Swan, Septem- mer Prank M. and Ernest on Oleum, restraining ber violated the that in they intimidated, molested, bodily and harassed threatened Buddenberg, Norton, harm and threw rocks at W. J. John and employees plaintiff Robert Diehl other who were then property refinery plaintiff. the of the The allegations court found all of except the true that Shulman, Kierstad and alleged Swan at the time had neither knowledge notice nor restraining pro- the order or its Shulman, ; visions dismissed as to Swan; Kierstad and adjudged Casey, each union and Kenny, Phillips, Silva, Bul- lock, Page guilty contempt and Holt authority punishment the As court. therefor, the court ordered the pay International Union to $500, $150; the Local Union Casey Kenny, each, imprisonment days in county two the jail $50; and a fine of Phillips, Silva, Page Bullock, Holt, each, imprisoned to be day county one jail. the Substantial evidence was probably sup- adduced that would port judgment complaint if the stated facts sufficient to show enjoined face the commission acts restraining order, except we if that doubt there was substan- tial evidence that Holt knowledge and Bullock had pertinent provisions order. Counsel respondent for the company direct attention to the fact that Holt did take not prima showing witness stand to rebut against facie him and that Bullock’s (when evasiveness on the witness stand testifying concerning participation his picketing activi- charged Ritchey complaint) ties was each, evidence that possessed respectively, knowledge. such Whatever eviden- tiary may value such conduct (assuming have but deciding Bullock’s conduct in Ritchey case was evidence case), the Hemmen we do not consider that such alone, conduct by unaided evidence subject, on the amounts sub- stantial evidence that either Holt or requi- Bullock had disobeyed finding support a knowledge to

site court. order of the complaint sufficiency of the However, question Were the constituting contempt presented. facts to state Those restraining order ? acts charged proscribed acts threatening bodily molesting, Intimidating, harassing, were: “employees of the throwing certain at, rocks to, harm refinery of property of the who were then on the plaintiff ’’ essentially allegations same as those plaintiff. These are complaint, for the same reasons of the Diehl and insufficient complaint the Diehl are insufficient. as those of judgment on jurisdiction render We conclude wanting judgment should complaint Hemmen and that the be annulled. Ritchey, by Donald Ritchey complaint, an affidavit 14, 1948, alleged International Union

filed October H. Waldren, Montell Bul- Union, and Local F. William Lowery A. lock, Erickson, B. and Charles Albin Mansfield Tormey, Madison, 4, 1948, at Oleum and violated on October they intimidated, molested, order in that bodily to, harm and threw rocks harassed threatened Company and at the train Pacific crew Southern employees company operating while crew was the the refinery; plaintiff’s train from while the train was leav- they ing refinery pickets for the stationed themselves as the purpose accomplishing foregoing the acts and of inter- fering train; with the movement of the course of the accomplish they and said acts with the intent said acts Stanley Bray, employees struck one of the of the Southern Pacific with Company, a rock. except allegations found all the true that the court day did violate the restrain-

International Union said Lowery ing Waldren, Erickson, and and Madison knowledge on that occasion had neither notice nor re- the straining provisions; order or of its dismissed as to Inter- Lowery Madison; Union, Waldren, Erickson, national and adjudged guilty contempt and the Local and Bullock Union authority therefor, punishment of the court. As $175; a pay court directed the Local Union to fine Bullock imprisoned county jail days following to be in for two the end imposed upon contempt of the term him pro- in the ceeding based the H. G. Hemmen affidavit. engine

On October crew an a Pacific took Southern easterly and caboose from Oakland to Oleum and thence switching. Then returned they did some Selby, where from freight hauled them up 40 and Oleum, picked cars Selby. The easterly through tunnel toward refinery emerged from the east after stopped train few minutes again stopped, tunnel, proceeded then and portal of the and point engine Tormey Crossing, a near west- with the erly Selby. proceeded easterly, from After a time the train beyond Selby. The railroad tracks between the tunnel Tormey Crossing edge. run to the water’s Prior to close during the time that the train moved back and forth between Tormey the tunnel Crossing, there were three rowboats waters bay, shore, near this area. In these boats, three respectively, five, four, there were men. two Among the men in boats, recognized the witness Pifer Lowery, Waldren, Bullock; Erickson and said that as the engine and caboose returned toward tunnel, men in the boats throwing made arms, motions with their motions which he illustrated court, demonstration in identified Waldren as making such that, engine motions. He observed as the with string passed of cars Tormey Crossing, the tunnel to throwing these repeated by motions were men boats, in the though they throwing rocks at the train. The boats followed the train a Tormey. considerable distance toward He said the (Bullock two-man boat in it) and Waldren car- sign ried reading Picket”; “Strike so also did five-man boat, the one Erickson was in. photograph (Ex. Shown 34), depicting boats, two this witness identified Waldren and Bul- lock in boat, one and Mock, among Erickson and Madison five in the other. Shown photograph (Ex. another 35), he Lowery identified as one of the four men in the boat there portrayed. The witness Bower substantially testified to same facts as did Pifer. Bower observed Erickson and Wal- making dren throwing motions, engine saw rocks hit caboose, and engine observed string that when the with the (cid:127) of ears Tormey, left going easterly, back, the boats went pier, around the toward Rodeo. The Eber witness testified to the concerning same effect as did Pifer the train movements and the in men making throwing the boats motions. The wit- Stanley Bray ness riding was in engine cab, the described the train movements testified that he was hit in the head object a hard which caused scalp bleeding. wound and object He coming did not see that but observed the fireman (who left, on his bay) between him move and the out way, off box, seat and the witness was hit from that

550 at 100 200 east of the tunnel engine was to feet side. The thrown. Ritchey rocks were the time. testified the boats During time striking. part He heard rocks train; within 70 to feet feet were 50 offshore rocks, in boat throw two men two-man saw one rocks. in five-man throw all the men boat observed fishing trip planned he and testified that Waldren Bullock opposite night day possibly and that fished an hour before right off depot then for time Oleum, the Southern Pacific dock, Selby but there from the Union then over to Flat Oil they fishing. then spill interrupted So, an oil their went wharves, and there were in between of the Union Oil two engine railroad came possibly four boats in there. Then a along switching Oleum, thought and started into “and so we into tank possibly going were Oleum to haul out some swung along gas something . . and we as cars of and oil . going on; could, near we to the switch as to see what was quite going in apparent and it was that these fellows were cars; immediately get following these we started so along hollering trying train down the track and started engineer ask . . . not or the that was on the train men go there, company because the was on ...” As strike happened engine string to what returned with a after say cars, very happened, he much did not could not anyone any see rocks; throw if rocks were thrown at the train, know; (in he did he not saw the same boat Waldren Bullock) throwing two times but did not know or three object was, might anything; what the have been rocks or most day, knowledge restraining order;. on that he had no no union, officer or member of the strike committee anybody else, told him go out in the water Waldren day; say rocks, not and Bullock no and could threw there boat, were when he rocks his he noticed none got in and got did not see Wal- when he boat. out going couple he of rocks as train was dren said threw a more got it, when easterly; the rocks were the boat he restraining injunction, three; than had heard about the he several fellows only pickets gate, but about four heard injunction hall various talking around the union about the along places, subject with other it was the of conversation Lowery things said progressing. such as how the strike was boys talking he volun- going fishing about and so a half out; they them for one one and teered to take fished tide, and then current swift because of hours became 551 they stopped they passed they fishing, so and as the wharf cops along saw a bunch of shore and went in to the see what going on; Selby; boats was saw two three anchored later, coming tunnel; a a half hour saw train out stayed hour; around an threw no rocks himself and did not did, believe of the others in boat and had recol- his no noticing anyone throwing lection of in rocks; the other boats injunction paper read in thought had it about but pertained just people Oil alone, to Union to the Southern recognized (Ex. Pacific. He photograph 35), himself in a in boat, rudder, a at the and the man in the front of boat holding picket sign, sign; “every a a said that boat had a picket sign it, you you in no went” matter where and raised sign you got after there. Erickson testified he was at hall morning the union in the day; was scheduled for picket duty gates refinery one of at the in the after- ; walk, noon he and Madison a bay, went for down they if Mock asked them like go picket would to out ain boat and picket duty; they do little so went back to the union hall for lunch and the witness notified picket their they captain going picket were out in a they boat as soon as left; that when he coming heard about the train in he decided assignment his boat; ask to have transferred to the he guessed right picket it was all captain, with the and he told captain going he was picket (The out and in the boat. picket list union’s among bore Erickson’s name [Ex. 75-B] duty for picket those listed afternoon, “P,” marked in- dicating reported he for duty, opposite his name the word in.) Mock, “Boat” was written Erickson, Madison and two went boat, others out the same the five-man boat shown (Ex. photographs 36). They one of proceeded from near Rodeo, wharf, Tormey around Union Oil Plat; toward they proceeded put picket they sign talk was that if up they might and threw a few rocks be crew able scare the engine maybe change the crew would their mind out; and not they did, take the cars the train arrived after coining through the tunnel; engine looked like was going couple onto these tank ears, kind boats were circling around, started throw few rocks at engine. Erickson threw “engine about three rocks. The get did pulled the ears and out, them so exploded we there for about five or ten minutes, proceeded and then we Long again around the Wharf and then back to the dock.” He said the port other boats did not leave the at the same

552 way, mayhe “It either I think Ms, time as was minutes only I out; first believe so.” He said the we one injunction day, knew, he about an was talk about thing gate. something picketing to four men that limited to a Others he rocks; got rocks were in the hoat when his boat threw from the it; the boat was feet train when testimony substantially rocks were thrown. Madison’s if the Mock “asked us Madison said we same as Erickson’s. go go boat, going out the because he was over Avanted in thought So, we we picket train, and the and would. we They making prepara- were waited around there for some time. got into the he noticed tions with the boat.” After he boat name also rocks, box on floor. Madison’s rocks, some of the (Ex. appeared 75-B) opposite and the list picket on penciled “P” “Boat” in. letter and the word finding support of the We find here evidence in substantial restraining order, that save as to the Bullock violate^ knowledge provisions. Counsel pertinent element of his of its respondent company of invoked the evasiveness Bullock (in case) evidence case as in Hemmen as substantial that possessed do not consider knowledge. he We such furnishes presented, here alone, such conduct on the facts finding. conclude that support for We substantial such a Ritchey complaint judgment against Bullock on the Avas It does jurisdiction without and be annulled. should Union, necessarily Local judgment against the follow that the annulled. complaint, the same should be upon Union, contempt in of court adjudged toAs the Local four to consider complaints, each of the six we have but complaints Hemmen view of our that the Diehl and conclusion judg- jurisdiction render stated confer facts insufficient to concerning question four, As ment. there can be no those restraining knowledge temporary the Local Union’s of and Was order. in the action party The union was defendant restraining September 1948, copies served on with 14, memorandum order, cause, order to affidavits show orders upon of those points and authorities which action. in the based, complaint well as the summons and principal ease, in each question, is whether or not the Local Union bore such a relation transaction directly a participant, through it was or member actors, legally responsible done, for the acts as acts en- joined by scope order. is the and extent That inquiry. question are not at We all concerned with the might might legally not be found whether the union facts, in a civil action for responsible, upon the same set of alleged action for viola- alleged damages a criminal an Code. provision the Penal tion some judgments contempt respect In rendered against complaint, Union on the Davison it is the Local clear judgment support is substantial. evidence Casey secretary agent business union was financial officer) (its one full-time and a member of its committee. strike principal He actor in that transaction and director of supports implied finding it. The evidence of the trial court that his acts that occasion were the acts of the Local Union. There is additional evidence that tends to support judgment against case; the Local in the Davison also, Grant, Briggs those rendered Ritchey cases. Marcos, president

A. A. of the Local Union, testified that the elective president, officers the union consist of the first second vice-presidents, secretary, financial record- ing secretary, guide, guard, grievance of 11 mem- committee bers, trustees; and three there an executive com- consisting mittee officers; the elective and that a strike up September committee consisting was set or 4, A. (president), Kenny A. Marcos (first vice-president), J. P. A. (second G. Mailtos vice-president), Casey (financial Prank secretary), Loyd Cooper (recording secretary), John Mc- (guard), Kenny Keown L. J. (trustee), Bradley, J. L. Wil- Law, liam Goughian, Tom Devine, Prank and W. B. Bates (the last grievance three were members of the committee) ; Bradley and replaced Doty Law Leo and Harold Lowery, original appointees resigned. who had There was negotiating a also committee, which Marcos, consisted of A. A. Loyd Prank Casey, Cooper, Prank Devine. There was a welfare to find housing committee food and for members applications screen to for assistance; financial had it no func- tion with to picketing. reference committee, strike Marcos, said authority had the

conducting strike, subject the approval of the member- ship regular meetings at a week; they held once had members picketing places at other than assigned Oleum but only their picket Oleum; own members to that Marcos did not have authority anything anybody, individually over presi- or as union; general dent of the the conduct of the strike was the responsibility of the strike committee; none of the members of they specific duties, did whatever it

the committee had strike they do, just matters as came necessary to “We handled mem- up”; captains appointed, were as were the picket the (the committee, joint a strike committee bers the committee) subject the grievance to board and the executive body union; local, governing approval of the pickets picketing limit to instructed the to strike committee given picket gate, were four at each instructions that along to captains pass to these instructions who were told in- assigned giving shifts.- When those pickets their to they they captains had Marcos, picket told the structions, said injunction there injunction and the said been served with an pickets kind be shall violence and the shall be no gate, captains limited four to each told cap- duty picket instructions; follow it was the those pickets; carry tains to out instructions and to advise the those picket Union; Local pickets all the were members coordinating committee, headed prepared by lists who captains, Mr. were handed to the Alt, and lists captains first were William lists; administered the selected Smart, Law, possibly and Elmer Ahern, Cargo, Lou Bill changes on; captains later others, with some one two captain. helpers, lieutenants, had called selected Shown “Wednesday legend persons, a list of names of which bore the “Sept. 15, 1948,” Marcos it was 8 A M 4 P M” and said listed picket day for indicated and that the names list picket duty during hours assigned were members entry name indicated indicated; “P” after member’s duty not all list hall; down at the on the he answered assign- given picket duty, did some were who answered duty appear did not ments, picket did whose names and some copy of the restrain- on the Marcos said he received his list. did ing September, 14th read and offhand order on the reading; September what he was understand Casey their Cooper went to San Francisco and met with Lindsay (that Aljets, papers, served the Walden who attorney, day get legal ad- give he them a or two some said would meant; they vice), get of what was did not to clarification restraining hall, post order at union nor did having any discussion of the witness recall any meeting union; membership of the “The Com- advisability attempting interpret mittee discussed against it for the reason that time it and we decided at that through thorough press employees letters to all every they using weapon Company that Company was story members, put to the had in command to out the their just injunction was another move on the and we felt this part Company to break the and weaken the morale strike enough had members, and none of us a clear understand- ing injunction interpreters. to act as As matter regular probably had our fact, we been advised counsel all going now; the members to be were served seemed part be what was done the southern of the State and why up So, there was no reason hold true it shouldn’t here. post certainly it, we did did it, not not discuss didn’t ad- anyone vise assigned of it. What we did do is this: weAs pickets absolutely we line, told them there be should violence, pickets gate. no and not more than four to a That did, all we do; was and we we maintained still nothing picketing that there should be more than peaceful up there, and there four should not be more than men on any gate. injunction, right As to the rest of the I now can’t you tell what in it.” He said reduced the number pickets gates at the September four on 16. or picketing As boats, Marcos believed there was some picketing Oakland, around Petaluma and around the Port and out in the ap- channel off of Oleum the were tankers proaching docks; if picketing tankers, boats were he imagined they signs. September would have Before 15 he any never picketing saw boat within 100 feet or so property; Union Oil he did instruct or authorize persons picket in the property waters within feet of that September 15; before anyone did not know about else on doing strike so, though normally committee he attended meet- ings of the area; committee he when was in this there were when he negotiations ; times was Los Angeles, attending he September 17, say at Rodeo 16 and could not whether he September was at Rodeo 22, 26, on 4, 1948; days October away on the he was from local headquarters, vice-president Kenny first James P. acted Kenny his if place, and absent, vice-president were also second Malkos would act. This witness did not whether the know strike committee at time Prank do instructed Silva to anything.

Tom Goughian, recording secretary and member of the strike committee of the Union, Local testified picket that the captains appointed by the strike committee. He did

556 assigned picket September on

not know who was boats meeting September 16, 1948, 1948. The minutes of the .17, following entries: of the contained the Under Local Union entry “Report Committee,” an that of the Boat “Brother reported Committee as to the number Malkos for the Boat working duties”; of boats for our efforts and their we have entry Committee,” the “Report under of the Co-ordination again of the Co- that “Brother Alt discussed the functions regarding picket assignments and of- ordination Committee Publicity “Report of Com- duties”; fice force and under mittee,” the func- entry that “Brother McCord discussed publicity saying of a committee, tions that local immediate all releases come from published, press news is that would ‘ ’ paper Off Human The called Stream. International. is line stories, picket interest committee functions news (second vice-president will be featured.” G. A. Malkos report for committee), a member of the strike who made that authority committee, had over the boat testified that he some boats; bay assigned September on for some boats on fishing they picket signs also; not know had on them did September 22, he on could not remember did so what during September happened day; the last two weeks in he were out there assignments, did not make there boats some them, anything; picket signs tell them do with on he did not to say gave he had do he definite orders so much to he would not October; anybody go September out there in he for during were boats out first week in knew there there they signs may on been fish- picket them, with have October ing; these sometimes went to Oakland or Petaluma boats he places bay; various around the when were knew bay. going points and Oakland and various in the Petaluma pro- coordinating committee, Alt, Harold chairman picket days upon for the various which violations duced lists charged, explained lists “ ”P opposite Marcos. The use, entry and their as did man’s “Present,” responded he at the duty, name indicated hall; captains picket gates. the men to union detailed Lowery” picket September 17, opposite P. list for “M. On (one charged complaint) the members the Grant entered. The witness did know for sure “Boat” was word (We entry have, above, what that noted similar entries meant. picket Erickson and Madison opposite the names of on list 1948.) for October September 4, per cent voted strike was approximately Union, 1050 members of the Local ac-

cording Marcos. witness presented picture organization

Here an membership through vote its authorizes a and by strike specially its elected officials and constituted committees con- strike, giving authority ducts general committee strike subject approval conduct the strike of the members expressed regular weekly meetings, using pickets selected duly and listed coordinating constituted committee and assigning pickets supervising to their stations and them through picket captains duly appointed purpose; for that using, also, a committee, by boat as evidenced the minutes meeting September by 16 and certain of the issues union’s testimony news bulletin. The and officers strike concerning assignments committeemen duty by to strike boat evasive,. they say somewhat but assign- did that such ments were picketing made for the of tankers in the channel and at Petaluma and the Port of Oakland and that the boats picket carried signs, and none assignments said that no were made for picketing offshore of railroad train movements in vicinity Phillips’ of Oleum. testimony that union picket sign furnished the for his boat and the transfer of Erickson and Madison from picket duty land to boat with the picket captain sanction of th on the 4th of October, coupled with the circumstantial evidence by furnished the entries opposite their names on the picket day, list for are added support indicia which implied finding picketing by boat activities here involved were those of union as an organization, not the activities of mem- individual acting bers the union on their duly own. The con- stituted officers and committees of the union, clothed with general authority to (including picket- conduct the strike ing) for and on behalf organization of the as a unit, cannot in good conscience, with knowledge restraining of the order and provisions early its by advice attorney, thereon their withhold from the members, particularly assigned those performing picket duty, adequate concerning information enjoined by acts restraining order. Those members were acting merely on their They own. acting for the organization quite union as an naturally and would look to captains guidance their assignments. as well as for station responsible and directing officers and committeemen could not suffer the communication of this picket information to the say then captains, break down at the level

men to they charge union whose affairs had neither nor the That disobeyed order. mandates of the four of its Local Union and to was addressed to the order (all parties members its strike committee officers and six made), and “restrained order was in which the the action agents, enjoined” them, their serv- them “and each of employees, pickets” representatives, officers, members ants, indirectly by directly or “committing performing from proscribed in the of” the acts means whatsoever quoted opinion. paragraphs of earlier seven by duty union cannot be evaded with- A thus cast holding representatives, member- agents, from its its by quite evidently needed them to enable pickets, information violating injunction. strike without the union to conduct its picket- violent Cumulative evidence to effect that ing sporadic mere indi- activities were not outbreaks par- union, vidual members of the is furnished the active ticipation leadership Casey prevention of re- refinery. by the Indeed, action moval coke such secretary agent, financial and business a member of its strike power do whatever it was committee and clothed with necessary (as the conduct of the strike stated do closing eyes and president Marcos), was no mere suffer- enjoined ing sporadically to commit acts individual members by by this officer was order. Such conduct support implied in evidence of a character of an substantial finding encouraged that the union and sanctioned disobedience of the court’s order. judgments severally upon rendered

We conclude that the Briggs, Davison, Ritchey complaints, ad- Grant, and authority judging guilty, contempt the Local Union of the court, supported by were were evidence and substantial jurisdiction court render. within the of the trial adjudged guilty con- The International Union was authority tempt participant as a in court doing Briggs, Davison, in charged Diehl, of the acts complaints. Hemmen accordance with our conclusion In judgments Diehl were based that the and Hemmen cases judgments be an- upon complaints, those should insufficient nulled as International as to the other Union as well thereby. petitioners affected alleged Briggs

The complaints acts and Davison committed on September, 1948, the 22d the 27th of The respectively. evidence is substantial that the International knowledge temporary restraining had order and its provisions dates, copies on those for it was served with thereof moving papers and of the complaint the summons and by Knight, action service on president, 0. A. its on September 17, 1948, and on Brown, service J. Elro director, September on Knight district 1948. and Brown therewith, were also served respectively, those dates individuals. question

The in each of these two cases is whether or not there was substantial evidence that the International Union such bore a relation to the transaction as would and did characterize it in law a participant legally responsible for enjoined the acts done as acts by the restraining order.

The by-laws constitution of the International Union for 1948-1949 are evidence. That document indicates relationship between the International and Local Unions person the members. A attains membership in the by becoming International a member (art. 3) of a Local X, § right and has the of transfer of membership from one Local to another when he jurisdiction moves from the of the one to the other (X, §10). legislative The and governing body of the International is the National 6-12). Convention (III, §§ Every member of the represented International in the Na- tional Convention delegate delegates chosen to represent his Local. The voting strength of the Locals is based average per their capita payments to the International. No eligible member of a Local is to serve delegate aas unless he has been a good member in standing of the International at least six months and of a Local at days, least 90 unless the Local organized has been less than six (III, months §§ 9). The elective officers of the president, International are a a vice-president, a secretary-treasurer, seven International executive council members and seven International viee- council members. The president, subject to confirmation council, appoints seven directors, district one for each of the seven geographical districts of the (V,§ 1.) International. president presides at the National is chairman Convention, of council, executive is chief administrative officer, responsible for all activities of the International other than assigned by those convention to other elected officers, plans supervises all programs, negotiations and other necessary activities for the advancement and welfare of the duty is all authorized members. It his to conduct strikes. representatives organizers, all appoints He International necessary. when It is his procures legal advice function of the International and decide interpret to constitution binding and his is questions, usages, all decision laws amended reversed the executive council the con- unless qualifications . (VI, IX, 1.) are 2; Minimum vention. § §§ The (I, 4, 5). members mandates prescribed for individual §§ obeyed must at all times and it of the International be power vested to establish Local Unions and to alone is guidance, for regulate and determine all matters their while right necessary is laws to Locals conceded the to make government which not conflict with the laws for Local do 2). (I, International executive council the International The § of a viola- revoke the charter Local case continued must 3). obey (IX, refusal to the laws of the International tion or § for fees and are Minimum and maximum rates initiation dues which con- prescribed by the constitution. Of dues requires each Local to collect from the members stitution may $3.00), per month, $1.15 which a increase to $2.50 Local $1.25) is per (until 1, 1948, and month November thereafter monthly by to the Inter- per capita payable tax the Local International; property but is at all times the national property of the to be disbursed Local, the remainder is the subject provide, Local International the laws (X, 6.) governing conduct Locals. constitution § capita these per allocates revenues certain constitution moneys only 1). may Defense be (X, fund drawn funds § Local for sustenance of lockouts and strikes of Unions are authorized, when such endorsed conducted strikes conformity requires XII constitution, with article which duty for recipients report strike as directed During strike, representative in the International Local. weekly reports to International show- charge must make money ing paid. (XII, distributed and amounts to whom 8-10.) If desires be a Local Locals circularized §§ assistance, may appeal only the International for financial appeal warranted, for aid. If the is found Interna- Money appeal make the to the other Locals. tional officers sent to International and is for- contributed must be then which account Local, shall therefor the Inter- warded 14.) by-laws A (XII, prescribed standard set of national. § govern procedure Local to until modified each provisions except subject certain thereof Local, are not

561 products the may declare by No Local change the Local. on “We products place such “unfair” or company oil sub- first been action has list,” unless such patronize don’t council, executive by the International approved to and mitted the authority' request whenever grant on which such shall agreement with to reach abandoned efforts International has any portion member- of its affecting company in matters such a may not A call strike ship (X, §11). Local concerned all its meeting thereon, notice to calling a with first without members of the affected nor three-fourths members, unless decide, If so the by strike. decide on secret ballot a president notify International Local must the president of the facts. dispute and all relevant of the matter cause adjust must then endeavor president The International notify must prove if his futile he efforts difficulty, a is council, and if the council decides strike neces- executive sary be order a strike. No strike the union shall authorized to moneys legal except expended work on contract is deemed expense account, from the International fund unless by approved is authorized Interna- first strike president tional and executive council. on contract Strikes may approved by president work be the International in the 2.) expediency. (XII, any question" In interest of §§ organization whole, a pertaining to the welfare of the approval of president, International with the the executive steps preserve council, take such as will best shall interests organization, subject a of the to referendum vote of Local days by requested per Unions within when cent Unions; provision which the president" Local a International may (VI, 10). as a result an invoke unauthorized strike § inaugurating A Local Union a strike without executive council approval shall not receive benefits on account the strike. monthly shall No dues be collected members affected period (XII, 7.) of a during strike. §§ by-laws apparent It is the constitution and through Union, acting Inter- vested in International power by officers, national authorize strike called Union, president and cast International Local duty might conduct all authorized strikes. That alone legally responsible make the International and amenable for by contempt Locals in acts done its members one of its authority inquiry We entertain the further court. in support whether or not there substantial evidence finding implied trial court’s in the instant case the prerogative International assumed its of conducting this particular strike.

This strike was authorized the International. Knight, president The witness O. A. International, testified provisions that “Under the terms and of the Con- representations stitution and with the implied are therein, the International it, Executive Council authorized indicating that, opinon; such authorization in their negotia- further tions would not be fruitful, that there was no use therefore proceeding negotiations.” with further He further testified simultaneously that other against strikes were called companies in California, including oil the Standard, Rich- field, Associated, companies, Shell Texaco and that the against approved International the strike each of those com- panies under the same it conditions that did the against strike Company. Eight companies Union Oil oil were involved. September 4, 1948, approximately 15,000 On employees went out on strike. days September 4, 9 or 10 after

About Knight President headquarters arrived in California from his at Fort Worth, Texas. He was in the Contra Costa area for a days number of officials, met with various Local Union and addressed meetings open of members. He addressed an air meeting of the Richmond Local at Richmond September 15, and meetings at Martinez on 16th and Richmond on the 28th September. A recordation was made of the address de- September meeting livered at the at Richmond. That played in portion recordation was court and a thereof tran- scribed into the record. transcription From that it appears that International district director (his J. Elro Brown dis- trict included California four other western states) acted chairman, introducing as and in Knight President speaker as a Knight said that up headquarters “has now set in this purpose district for the of assisting, advising and- directing against the strike companies, the oil or oil trust on the West By-Laws Coast. Under the Constitution and of the Oil Work- ers’ Union, International all strikes are under the direction President, and our President is here to direct this against strike the oil trusts on the West Coast. gives It me great pleasure you to introduce (Jack) A. 0. Knight, President of the Oil Workers’ International Union, CIO.” In response to introduction, this Knight’s President initial remarks you, were: Thank Mr. Chairman, and to the mem- Interna- Workers’ the Oil Union Local Richmond bers of Union; you rousing good wishes bring to wish I tional express Nation and throughout workers of the oil yours bring out fight in this you able are hope that bring—that you victory you out to set type it the Richmond, here in bringing a condition about are successful wages at least commensu- you can work for California, where throughout workers our being paid to with those rate ’’ Knight address, President his During course of Nation. official, company oil suggested a certain “It has been said: control of Standard, that the of the local not a member Inter- hands of the Oil Workers’ gotten out of the strike has being that the President implication Union, the national directing here. That statement organization is now it another as I am concerned absolutely ridiculous that insofar is so however, horns.) wish, I (Automobile need denial. does not I am the Presi- company officials that assure all of the oil I con- and will Workers’ International Union dent of the Oil interference duties of that office without to fulfill the tinue elect long you fit continue to just so see anyone, fight. It’s a our (Applause.) This is me to that office. it’s fight against the oil industries in the United States of Cali- against the oil industries in the State particularly involved, only fight only one union There is one fornia. big enough job we set out to I think have we’re to do years said, further, long “for a number of do.” He greatest labor represented I consider to be the I what have Work- organization produced—our Oil the world has ever own fight, going We are forward in this ers’ International Union. going continue only Richmond, we’re to not here but Martinez, at going Avon, continue it at Rodeo. We are to have won this of until we throughout the State California fight and earlier, I we have but one strike,” and said “As International only involved, union the Oil Workers’ there’s one also, industry California”; of of against the oil the State Union express- you by again talk to going “I’m conclude this little to the throughout support workers ing you solid of the oil to the assuring by say, I going conclude, “I am to as Nation,” and you solidly is behind you your International Union that 100%. certainly victory will your part, part, we’ll do our and You do grow. will continue to organization of ours come, and ’’ statements, carry function. These out its It will continue by Brown, presence by made in his Knight, some made others support finding implied furnish for the substantial of the trial Union, through president, court the International its charge took of and conducted strike had the authorized which by against respondent been called the Rodeo Local herein. In addition, appears testimony Knight he of and attorney, September, his 14th or 15th atmet headquarters leaders, the Rodeo union and advised the Local legal right who their asking were about picket institute adjacent plant lines around a refinery, plant to the Oleum supplied the refinery, attorney steam to and the advised against picketing. appears by such It testimony also Knight, Brown, other and International officersthat the Inter- national solicited received contributions Local Unions persons and groups throughout country through distributed funds thus received its International representative the Rodeo union for financial assistance Knight members in need thereof. said the International thereby fund, nearly did not its defense use which had been merely disbursing but acted depleted, agency as a and that moneys distributed not in the nature of strike was, however, benefits. It an activity International Union apparently provisions conducted accordance with the relating constitution solicitation distribution of moneys by International when requested by a distressed approved Knight Local International. also testi- personal fied that activities in California consisted, princi- his pally, assisting negotiation agreements in the of new with Angeles. companies, the oil conducted at Los Such activities might alone not furnish substantial evidence that the Interna- power they exercised strike, conduct this but tional are independent with the inconsistent evidence which prove tended to exercise power part of that the International. Knight upon

It true that witness stand denied allegations material each of the six insofar complaints, related the International, having disavowed had anything picketing to do with the conducted the Local Union, or pickets, the selection instruction of its knowledge anything time of which as- serted individual did. contemnors

Knight practice further stated that it his at all times peaceful picketing to counsel respect His law. concerning testimony counseling impeached such is somewhat by transcription the fact that this record of the address on September 15 that shows Richmond which he made at an had worked he and others occasion he said that out. work going to whereby persons who had been understanding attempt take longer no Company “will at the Standard Oil Interna- picket Workers’ through the lines of the Oil people 1‘ ’’ people run attempts out Union, and that of these tional developed large through picket lines, had between there many developed things the use of people-—-there’s numbers ordinarily use in situations. which we don’t strike Because requesting I union understanding, of this am local to no any way longer encourage might situation which violence, damage property, danger or in result to human just long your beings. asking picket I am so as limes re- (Emphasis added.) main ...” inviolate Asked if he made Knight occasion, such a statement on that said he could not “yes” or “no.” if deny answer it Asked he would making a effect, said, statement to that he “It is neither affirmed nor ’’ My memory quite well, sir, denied. does not serve -me adding always speaks extemporaneously that he and that he group addressed that least minutes. significant bearing

The evidence the International’s legal responsibility is that furnished the constitution and by-laws concerning the element of control over the Local right International and the of the International and the ‘‘ duty president of its on its behalf to all conduct authorized strikes,” and the Knight statements Brown and at the meeting, Richmond support implied finding which the International, through president, conducting its these strikes, including against the strike the respondent herein. Picketing, clear, it is important part was deemed an conduct of a part, strike. That negotiation contrast agreements new and the solicitation and distribution of funds for the assistance body of members in thereof, parent need did not conduct immediately directly by through its International part officers. It conducted that of the strike through the Local Union committeemen, and its officers and member-pickets, and the agents representatives International. parent body escape responsi- cannot bility for of these, agents acts its representatives, done in violation of the the Interna- after tional received knowledge notice and of the order and its provisions. duty guiding The same controlling the acts agents representatives in the observance upon as Local upon International

injunction rests who were the member- relation to the individuals in its Marcos, presi- according to the witness happened, pickets. It upon day of the service or two Local, that within dent of Casey officials, the Local restraining order two of of the them copies of the in- with Francisco Cooper, “went to San and to the Lindsay [attorney with Walden junction and met get attempted to from him and a clarification of International] why explaining In what meant.” the Local officials did specifically bring restraining the terms of the to order membership large, Marcos, among the attention of at other fact, things said, by “As a matter of we had been advised our all regular probably going the members were counsel that to be now; that seemed to be what was in served done the southern part was no reason itwhy of the state there shouldn’t up So, post it, did not it, true here. we did not discuss hold anyone of certainly it,” except didn’t advise to tell the captains violence, picket there should be no and not more than pickets gate, captains pass and to direct the to four to a those along pickets. appear would It that the instructions member-pickets and the acted in the line and Local Union authority agents scope representa- their within the degree tives of the International but without that Union, direction and control the International guidance, officers International, after which would enable it received notice knowledge restraining order, duty perform of the complying mandates in with the of that order the conduct conclude, therefore, of this strike. We the International severally judgments Briggs rendered that the adjudging complaints, guilty the International Union Davison authority contempt court, supported by of the were jurisdiction and were within the substantial evidence court to render. trial Validity Temporary Restraining

2. As to the Order. temporary restraining Petitioners contend that order they say, it prohibited peaceful picketing because, was void proscription pre- included within its acts of a character not complaint supporting court the verified and the sented affidavits which furnished the factual basis for the issuance of that order. they

The acts which which petitioners committed for adjudged contempt of court were were disobedience restraining them portion of the order which forbade ‘‘threatening bodily injury plaintiff’s “officers, harm or to” employees, customers, persons having agents, or plaintiff plaintiff, attempting business with to serve” “while entering, leaving attempting leave attempting enter, plaintiff’s claims, ...” No one nor refinery Oleum could anyone successfully claim, peaceful that such acts constitute picketing guaranty or that come within constitutional speech. successfully freedom of a claim Nor could be made type specifically that such acts not of the described complaint supporting the verified and the affidavits. unnecessary

It is whether or provisions decide not other might be construed as prohibiting peaceful picketing prohibiting mere or as conduct not within type scope or of the of acts described the complaint and the affidavits. Bell, In re 19 Cal.2d 488 P.2d 22], was a habeas [122

corpus proceeding judgment for review of a rendered upon petitioners the conviction of for violating county proscribed ordinance which types certain picketing. of The Supreme Court found petitioners could have been law- fully only portion convicted under that of the ordinance which “ ‘ read as follows: Section 3. It is unlawful any persons picket premises to beset or another, of or approach thereto, any person employed where is or seeks employment, or any place approach or employee thereto where such per- or seeking employment son lodges or resides, for the purpose of inducing employee such person or seeking employment, by means of compulsion, coercion, intimidation, threats, acts of violence, quit or fear to employment his or her or to refrain ’ ” seeking freely entering employment. into (P. 491.) Supreme The Court further provisions found that those part ordinance were valid in part. and invalid in part That prohibited picketing by which acts of violence deemed valid. The part court separable considered that from the invalid portion, petitioners and because failed to show whether the acts for the they commission of which had been convicted proscribed by were the valid or the invalid portion of the ordinance, the court petitioners concluded that the had failed meet burden which the law east showing them of that the trial jurisdiction court did not have judg- render the ment under review. principles

The same and a reasoning like line of apply paragraph restraining 1 of the judgments and the of addition, proceeding. In in the instant contempt under review contempt here involved judgments of that the it is manifest portion the valid upon disobedience based assuming purpose phase of this restraining order, for the portion deciding, that discussion, but not some may invalid. restraining order have been the. whether case, inquiry the sole is ease, as in Bell In this judgment jurisdiction to render had or not the trial court from cases of direct render,—quite it did which different petitioners judgment upon appeal, some of which attack of a position upon point, but support of their cited have inapplicable here. which we consider Restraining to the Local a/nd Applicability Order 3. Unincorporated Associations Unions, International Order, That to Them Provisions as Enforcement Applicable. if claim that because International Unions Local entity; hence, an neither unincorporated associations are meaning of the “person” them is a within neither of they say, necessarily follows, statutes. It applicable judgment of jurisdiction to render trial court was without judgment each such against and that contempt them, be annulled. void and should either of them was in court as law. Bach union was view the We do so sought plaintiff in an action in which party defendant against union the conduct injunction each an party de- Bach was in court as types picketing. certain “When two which declares that by virtue of a statute fendant such business, transact persons, associated more name, comprises the names a common whetherit business under may by be such not, the associates sued persons of or such being in such served name, the summons cases common judgment associates; and the the action of the one or more associates, and the joint property of all the the shall bind process, party parties with of or served property the individual defendants and as if all had been named manner in the same Proc., joint liability.” (Code Civ. upon their sued had been 388.) § to an party becomes a an association When such jurisdic- acquires necessarily follows that the court action, it jurisdiction has full as the it it the same extent tion over This during pendency the action. party the of any over “de- authority of the court jurisdiction the includes it controversy parties it, before when any between termine others, by or rights of the prejudice to without can be done Among 389.) Proc., (Code Civ. § saving rights; ...” their compelling “obedience to its a is that powers of court the judge aof to the orders process, p,nd orders, judgments, pending therein.” proceeding action or court, an out jurisdiction authority and 128.) The Proc., (Code Civ. § ‘‘ pre- judicial To a officer power of the of the court includes and in presence, in his immediate enforce order serve and perform- in the engaged him, when he is before proceedings compel his lawful duty” obedience to and “To ance of official 177.) Proc., (Code Civ. in this code.” provided § orders as powers by exercise of conferred “For effectual may judicial punish officer for [§177], last section a con- (Code code.” tempt provided Proc., cases in this Civ. injunction requiring person or 178.) “An is a writ order § granted particular may be by from a act. It to refrain thereof; brought, by judge action or court in which the is may granted by judge, be enforced an and when as order (Code Proc., 525.) court.” Civ. Section 526 of § types Procedure enumerates the Code of Civil of cases may injunction granted, including which an be the case by appears complaint “When it or affidavits that during litigation continuance some commission or act great irreparable produce waste, injury, party would or or to a ’’ ample These statutes furnish action. sanction by the trial court of order in question, issuance to the an order directed Local International Unions ordering them to refrain parties action, doing acts. of certain many order of a court would be

Such an ineffectual in cases enforcing requirements provided. were not some means of provided by means enforcement have been Various statute. types contempt (including court Certain “Willful dis- lawfully any process obedience of issued court”) punishable are as misdemeanors made section 166 through Code, ordinary processes of the Penal enforceable of a action. Another method of criminal enforcement is provided 1222, inclusive, sections of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1209 declares that Section “Disobedience judgment, order, process of the lawful court” a remaining contempt authority of the court. sec- prescribe procedure group tions which was in- proceeding voked followed in the which culminated in 570

judgments contempt type of here under review. This proceeding proceeding. a It is not criminal action is a special by character, governed criminal proceeding, provisions Procedure, by not the Code of Civil those Code; punishment against the Penal for not an offense state, implement but intended to the inherent power the court to conduct the business the court and enforce the (Bridges Superior lawful orders of the court. v. 14 Court, 983].) Cal.2d 464, 473-477 P.2d [94 But, say petitioners, 1209 1222, sections to in clusive, Legislature apply to were not intended to un incorporated they apply associations because their terms “persons” to the code and section 17 of does not include unincorporated in its of “persons.” associations definition says ‘person’ That section corpora that “the word includes a ’’ tion as well as a person. say natural That is that “person” word under no circumstances unin includes an corporated association. The person that statement the word person corporation “includes” a a natural open leaves what types consideration of entities word in that particular cludes when used a given context a to meet situation. The ordinarily wrord “includes” is not enlargement. word limitation but rather of (Johnson v. Monson, 149, 183 Bentel, 152 ; Cal. Fraser P. v. [190 635] 390, 1062].) Cal. P. Ann. Cas. 1913B [119 Legislature enlargement used it as a word of in section 17.

Now, of course, proceeding in a under sections 1209 appear unincorporated an inclusive, must as when party sociation involved as a defendant must be such possesses a person capacity obey the order under consideration. Without no there could be capacity “disobedience” of the order. each of these That two unions had abundantly appears capacity the facts trial, opinion. adduced at the discussed earlier in this It is not simple partnership dealing case of a where in with others partner legal right each active has for all of the act partners could, firm. and bind the member of No these unions merely go member, Rodeo, as a union hall take over union, go conduct the business nor could he headquarters International at Port Worth and assume and powers presi exercise the of the International vested in its Each, by-laws body. dent the constitution and of union has its own well-defined functions and bears a certain the mem them toward each of other, and relation each to entity. Each, in aspects an of all of the has bers. Each dealings especially in its person, sense, a real very practical is unions are exemplifies that labor the fact Each with others. organizations they were once unimportant longer no the small developing institu is a labor union considered. power importance and growth in its tremendous tion and with partner corporation than the more to the be akin has come to had oc Recently, we order. ship or social or fraternal that, development and found to this trend casion consider is place of business venue, a labor union’s purpose of recog was early as 1888 it fact, In as its residence.* 11 purpose for the Courts will interfere nized in state that unincorporated rights members of protecting property of of jurisdic they cases, when take proper all associations in applicable, the rules so far as tion, enforce, will follow and (Otto of applying incorporated bodies the same character.” to Union, B. 75 Journeymen P. & Cal. 308 217, v. Tailors’ P. [17 156].) Am.St.Rep. It is organiza 7 obvious that such longer voluntary comparable tions to are no fraternal orders generis, partnerships; approximate are sui corporations operation powers. in their methods This being so, it can be done without wherever violation of some justice law, properly rule of the ends of will more be served apply organizations if the applicable courts to such rules corporations applicable voluntary than the rules rather or partnerships, procedural fraternal orders at least at the respect level and in business of a conduct court may and the enforcement of lawful orders. While there partnerships be associations which are more similar to than corporations, Venice Race was Road Association held City to be in v. 50 Venice, Cal.App. Leake 462 P. [195 is 440], corpora the modern labor union far more similar to partnership. organizations To such tion than to consider present day under conditions as mere social or fraternal orders partnerships eyes to close one’s to the realities now existing. interpretive

Earlier decisions 388 of the Code section support we have Civil Procedure lend to the views which Lodge 1289, 46 expressed. In Herald v. No. Cal. Glendale (decided Corp. Union, Spruce W. et al. *Juneau v. International L. Sr Bray. 1951) opinion 30, (Cal.App.), A Mar. hearing an written Justice May Supreme granted 28, 1951. Court 329], App. 325 P. held that this section the court [189 lodge joining unincorporated authorized of an of a fra- party seeking an ternal order as a defendant an action injunction serving liquor lodge from banquets. members at That decision was cited luncheons and approval Superior Court, with Jardine v. 213 Cal. case, In 317-18 P.2d 79 A.L.R the Jardine [2 291]. Supreme Court held that 388 authorized section joining Exchange, unincorporated Angeles of the Los Stock an association, defendant, “In Cali- party observing as a entity fornia, theory a number of has been established Court, (P. 309.) Armstrong Superior decisions.” In v. authorizes P. it was that section 388 1176], Cal. held [159 enjoin union against maintenance of an action a labor types picketing certain “all members having knowledge association terms of such injunction agents, therein, officers, issued as well as all their knowledge, are representatives, employees having such thereby guilty contempt bound of willful violation 342.) (P. thereof.” jurisdictions,

In other labor unions have been found amen- judicial process. able to Illustrative thereof are: Moran v. etc., International Alliance, N.J.Eq. 139 561 531]; A.2d [52 Packing United House Workers Boynton, America v. 240 of 881]; 212 Ia. N.W.2d and United v. [35 States United Mine America, Workers 330U.S. 258 677, 91 S.Ct. L.Ed. [67 884]. of by 4. Were the Acts Proscribed Temporary Restraining Order within the Federal Domain Extent Pre- of cluding a State Court Enjoining Their Commission? from Petitioners claim that the trial court jurisdic- was without tion to restrain the enjoined, commission of the acts it for the Congress, by asserted reason enacting Manage- Labor 1947, regulated ment Relations Act of subject the same matter thereby occupied field to the exclusion of states. They further claim that some of (picketing by boat) the acts upon navigable occurred waters and for that reason were jurisdiction within the federal to the of exclusion the state. Management to As the Labor Relations Act 1947 of (Pub. 101, eh. 61 136), petitioners Law Stat. par- direct (b) ticular to subsection (especially attention section 8 subparagraphs (B) (C) (4) subsection), said and section 10 (of 1935), National Labor Relations Act Management Relations 101 of the Labor as revised section attention to section 303 of the They also direct Act, 1947. act. States has decided this Supreme Court the United petitioners. question adversely position taken question presented to court In was whether Employment Relations Board en- an order of the Wisconsin Employment Policy Act un- the Wisconsin was tered under being void, repugnant provisions to the constitutional and (49 449; Labor Relations Stat. National Act U.S.C.A. board, hearing pursuant seq.). 151 et The state after held § provisions statute, appellants guilty found to the of the state practices union, unfair labor and ordered the of certain its officers, agents and from picketing, members to desist mass employees, obstructing interfering factory or threatening with obstructing interfering entrances, public with free use of sidewalks, picketing streets and and from the domiciles of employees. company subject It admitted that the was although the federal act the federal board had not undertaken jurisdiction in this case to exercise the which the federal act upon it. conferred

Confining specific attention facts the case carefully refraining giving before it and consideration to separable of the other and provisions statute, of the state Supreme Court of the United States directed attention only employee to the fact or union conduct and activity forbidden were, case, state “mass picket ing, threatening employees desiring physical to work with in jury property damage, obstructing egress entrance to and company’s from the factory, obstructing public streets surrounding roads factory, and picketing the homes employees. So far as concerned, the fourteen individuals are employees their company status as of the was not affected.” (Allen-Bradley Emp. Local v. Board, Wisconsin Relations 315 748 740, 820, 1154].) U.S. S.Ct. 86 L.Ed. The court [62 said, agree then “We with the statement of the United States as amicus curiae that the federal designed pre Act was not enacting legislation clude a State from prohibi limited to the ’’ regulation type tion of employee activity. or or union (P. 748.) distinguished The court decision Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 52 85 399, 581], upon U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. [61 ground that the federal provided statute there involved complete system registration thereby federal of alien superseded any system state of alien holding registration,

574 govern that the federal labor employee relations act did not activity or type enjoined by union of the the Wisconsin board, adding: “And inability we fail to see how the to utilize picketing, mass threats, violence, which devices employed qualifies were here impairs, dilutes, any or in respect any rights guaranteed subtracts from of the protected by the federal Nor engage Act. is the freedom to in such conduct shown intimately to be so essential or related guarantees to a realization of the of the Act federal that its impairment (P. denial is an policy.” federal 750.) In Supreme conclusion the Court said: “In sum, we cannot say that the mere enactment of the National Labor Relations Act, without more, regulation excluded type state which Wisconsin has exercised in It this ease. has not been shown any employee deprived rights protected granted or by the federal Act or any that the status of of them under the federal impaired. Act was Indeed, if portions state Act here invoked are invalid because conflict with Act, the federal long then so as the federal Act is on the books how difficult see State could under circum regulate stances picketing growing disorder out of labor disputes companies whose business affects interstate com (P. 751.) merce.”

We have subsequent found no decision of the United States Supreme Court disapproves the decision which it made principles applied which it in the Allen-Bradley case. (See Hill v. State Florida, 325 U.S. 538, 539, 545 [65 S.Ct. 1373, [concurring opin. L.Ed. by Mr. 1782] Chief Stone], Justice 555, 559-60 [dissenting opin. by Mr. Justice Frankfurter; Southern Pac. Co. v. Ariz., State 325 U.S. 761, at 776 1515, S.Ct. 89 L.Ed. 1915]; Railway [65 Mail Corsi, Assn. 88, v. 326 U.S. at 95-96 1483, S.Ct. 89 L.Ed. [65 2072]; and Union, International O’Brien, etc. v. 339 U.S. at 459 S.Ct. 978].) L.Ed. [70

In 1949, considering question whether or not the Labor Management Relations (including Act its revision of the National Labor 1935) precluded Relations Act of Employment Wisconsin Board, pursuant Relations pro- visions of the Wisconsin Employment Act, Peace from order- ing a union and others to cease and desist from instigating certain intermittent and stoppages unannounced work interfering otherwise with production except by leaving premises orderly an purpose manner for the going (an strike interpreted and limited the Wisconsin forbidding mem- individual defendants and Supreme Court as engaging in concerted effort to interfere bers of the union instantly by doing involved), production the acts with ‘‘Congress of the United States observed that Supreme Court fit either of these Acts 1935 and 1947 has not seen [the general policy specific to declare either a or to state rules acts] regulation phases as to their on state various effects traditionally labor relations over which the several states (International have Union exercised control.” U.A.W. v. Emp. Bd., 245, 516, Wisconsin 336 U.S. at 252 Rel. S.Ct. [69 651].) “However, 93 L.Ed. as to coercive tactics in labor controversies, we National have said of the Labor Relations Act equally Management what is true of the Labor Act of ‘Congress designedly open left an area for state control’ Congress that ‘the intention of to exclude states from exerting clearly police power (p. their be must manifested” citing Allen-Bradley case). “We therefore turn to legislation Congress clearly for evidence that has mani- power sought fested exclusion of an the state to be exercised (P. 253.) reviewing this ease.” After the salient features (including the 1947 act section 8(b)(4)), the court con- : “It cluded seems to us clear that this case falls within the Allen-Bradley rule announced in may police the state police these strike activities as it could the strike activities ‘ there, Congress because employee has not made such and union conduct as is subject regulation involved in this case ’ federal Board. existing possible There is no conflict or overlapping authority between the of the Federal and State Boards, because the authority Federal Board no has either to investigate, approve or question. forbid the union conduct in governable by This conduct is entirely the state or it is un- governed.” (P. 254.) “right With reference to the strike” mentioned in section 13 of revised act, recognition court said that this right plainly to strike contemplates strike, a lawful unquestioned the exercise of the right quit operate work and did legalize “not the sit- strike, down illegal which state law made and state authorities punished.” addition, In gave particular the court considera- provisions tion to the of sections 10(a) 7 and of the federal conclusion, act. In said, court find no “We basis denying power, to Wisconsin the governing her internal regulate affairs, a course of conduct right neither made a under federal law a violation of it nor and which has coercive effect obvious (P. device.” 265.) February, 1951, Supreme invalid In Court declared Utility provisions Law of the Wisconsin Public Anti-Strike prohibited against public pro- strikes utilities and which compulsory disputes of labor after vided for arbitration an impasse bargaining (Amalga- in collective had been reached. Assn, S., Emp. mated E. R. & M. Wiscon- C. America v. of of - - Emp. Bd., 359, sin 95 Rel. U.S. S.Ct. [71 -].) provisions L.Ed. found in The court those conflict by 1935, with the National Labor Act of as Relations amended Management pro- the Labor Relations of Act 1947. Such if visions, effective, operate would exercise restrain the rights protected by of section 7 of the federal act. We find nothing in which in that decision disallows or overrules way the holding which the court in the Allen- same made Bradley judgments and International Union The of cases. contempt here under review were rendered to enforce the injunction provisions pick- observance of of an which forbade eting by entirely violence, of acts of different from an means attempted right restraint the exercise of the to call a peacefully. strike and conduct it picketing upon navigable

The boat occurred wa- petitioners picketing ters. Because of this claim fact that such jurisdiction was within exclusive courts and federal jurisdiction beyond therefore point of a state court. This is well taken. picket The boats were within the territorial waters jurisdiction policing A

state. state has over territorial its waters, jurisdiction may be exercised a state for proper purposes. (People all 14 Stralla, v. Cal.2d P.2d 617 [96 941].) Judiciary Act of 1789 and later re- statutes enacting pertinent provisions, declaring that federal original cognizance district courts have exclusive of all civil admiralty causes of and maritime jurisdiction, placed a limita- tion “saving that exclusive feature to suitors in all right remedy cases the of a common-law where the common law competent give (28 is it . . 41, 3, .” U.S.C.A. subd. § 371.) interpreted in This clause was Moore v. Purse Seine § Net, 835, 18 Cal.2d meaning at 837 P.2d 1], that “a [118 involving case may properly cause of action maritime be brought type in a if remedy pursued state court traditionally jurisdiction within the law common courts.” The court concluded that “If type the action is of a cognizable admiralty both was and common law courts jurisdiction state courts retain a concurrent the fed- with

577 (P. 837.) the action.” admiralty to entertain courts eral Hendry Moore, J. Co. v. was affirmed C. The Moore case 499, 87 L.Ed. Those decisions S.Ct. 318 U.S. 663]. [63 picketing that even if the boat involved herein leave no doubt admiralty jurisdiction, or maritime a civil c-asc saving quoted jurisdiction had under the clause trial court subject matter thereof. saving enlarged by the 1948 This clause modified saving Code. The revision of title of the United States part 1333, became of section which clause declared that original jurisdiction federal district courts have exclusive of “Any admiralty states civil courts case saving jurisdiction, petitioner maritime the libellant or ’’ remedy every case to which he is otherwise entitled. Congr. (Pub. Sess., 646; Law 2d ch. Congr. 80th U.S. Code A3, A84.) 1948, p. In this saving Serv. form the clause September 1, (Pub. became effective Law 773, ch. § Congr. 646; p. 1948, A164), prior U.S. Code Serv. filing of the action and contempt commencement of the proceedings in saving the court below. In form the clause continued in effect section 1333 until was in amended 1949 read “saving in to suitors all cases all other remedies to which (Pub. are Congr. otherwise entitled.” Law 72, 81st 1st Sess., ch. 139; Congr. U.S. Code 1949, p. 109.) Serv.

Petitioners also 526t, invoke sections 526 to inclu- sive, of title 46 of the United through States Code aas statute the medium which government the federal has asserted jurisdiction and exercises exclusive every over pro- vessel pelled machinery and not more than 65 length, feet in except tugboats and propelled towboats by steam. The fact picket question that the boats in were propelled by outboard probably bring motors would them within the scope of the regulatory provisions of the statute cited. However, that only statute relates to the boat (requiring equipped that it be lights, whistle, preserver with a life safety devices) prohibits operation its in a negligent reckless or manner endanger so as to life, limb or property person. enacting In that statute the Congress certainly did not assert exclusive federal jurisdiction, or jurisdiction, over types of conduct which the trial court in judgments here under review found and declared constituted contempt court.

578 petitioners contention to this complete answer

A is not under consideration transaction fact that is the What jurisdiction. certain admiralty maritime or a cause of on land. picket boats took effect in the petitioners did mari tort to be that for a established long since been It has consum property must be injury person alleged time the (See Ex land. navigable waters, and not on mated on or ; 25, 30 L.Ed. 610 S.Ct. parte Co., Phenix Ins. 118 U.S. 274] [7 Co., 119 S.Ct. Elevator U.S. Chicago P. [7 Johnson v. & V. v. Terminal & R. Co. Cleve ; 30 L.Ed. Cleveland 447] ; 414, 52 L.Ed. S.Ct. Steamship Co., land U.S. 508] [28 514, 60 L.Ed. 166, 173-175 S.Ct. Raithmoor, 241 The U.S. [36 of a the disobedience principle applies to 973].) The same case here land, in the order when it takes effect court under review. in Be- Produced in Court Documents As to the Use

5. Assertedly Based Tecum, sponse Subpoenas Duces Affidavits. Insufficient jurisdiction to court lost claim the trial Petitioners they say, certain documents were because, as judgment render response into evidence produced in and introduced court tecum, upon an affidavit therefor subpoenas duces based a basis to furnish petitioners was insufficient which claim connection, they claim their In for such an order. immunity unlawful search and seizure constitutional incompetent violated, rendering the use of the documents proceeding void. entire question possession documents in were in subpoenas Local Union. The were addressed control of the requiring production union appropriate officers of the by- documents, which consisted of the constitution Union; minutes and minute laws of the International members, meetings on certain books of the Local and its specified September, November, 1948, dates October and special meetings during Local held and of all period; publication the “Off distrib- each issue of Stream” by September 4 strike committee of the Local from uted the 26, through September 1948; all the Local of the records of showing persons the who were members of the International September through 22, and of the Local from November 1948; picketed the list of all members of the who Local refinery Company; Oleum of the Union Oil and dates the time duty picketing assigned picket; of to and credited to each such by picketing duty performed the dates and hours of each refinery; and the picketed who the Local member of refinery September 15, on pickets of to the assignments days upon which 24, 4, 1948, 16, 17, 22, October severally alleged dis- complaints before the trial court restraining order occurred. obedience of the trial, quash During petitioners the service of moved to most, all, subpoenas, if which motions were de- not these brought and, nied. court when These documents into objections for, called to their use as evidence were made petitioners, documents, pertinent por- and overruled. The them, tions of then went The into evidence. record of the meetings minutes of the of the Local was submitted to the judge, trial portions only who from them selected those which he considered court, relevant to the issues before the where- upon only portions those were read into evidence. question directing whether or not the order subpoenas had of these a sufficient

issuance foundation in the accompanied the affidavit which application facts stated question for that order is for consideration and deter court in proceeding. inquiry mination this Our question jurisdiction. limited to the The manner of the production these documents which went into evidence did jurisdiction not affect the trial judg court render Selig Cahn, ment. In Inc. v. Wrecking Co., 9 Cal. California 2d 1113], appeal P.2d judgment from a [71 rendered appellant complained in a civil action the that “the trial authority an order made compelled court without it produce upon its books certain and records the trial.” (P. 619.) response In Supreme that contention the Court resist, remedy ruled that “The appellant, if it wished to order, by appropriate proceedings purpose. for that comply object It could not with the order and then introduction the records produced upon which it ground improper. (People that the order was Mayen, v. 188 Cal. 237 1383].)” Mayen P. 24 A.L.R In case, on an [205 appeal judgment from a grand larceny conviction of attempted grand larceny, appellant assigned as error photographs, the use of certain papers letters and as sertedly appellant’s taken place of residence under color of a search warrant based an insufficient affidavit.. Dur ing trial, prior papers, the use of appellant these moved for an requiring attorney district to return papers him, a motion which the court Later, denied. when certain of the papers were offered in evidence, appellant

580 he upon which grounds objected reception upon the to their objection was return, but had the motion for their made in were admitted and various of documents overruled competent Supreme that where The Court held evidence. law trial, courts, under the produced a evidence is on inquire investigate source may state, stop of this not to it obtained. it comes the means which was which unlawfully seized, proceeding recovery A for of property in court, independent proceeding said the of criminal As sought which evidence. it is to use such article in People Gonzales, 165, stated later in 20 at 169 v. Cal.2d [124 others, accepted state, many P.2d “the as in 44], rule permits the obtained on improperly introduction of evidence ground illegality that the does of search seizure admissibility not of affect the evidence.” 6. Petitioners’ Motion a Continu- As Denial for Prepare ance to Enable and Present Their Counsel to for Argument. Oral taking of evidence in

Upon the conclusion of the petitioners indi- 31, 1948, afternoon of for December counsel “You want argument. said, cated for a desire oral The court ’’ to could it, well, right make stated he start in now. Counsel transcript. right not start size of the then because “If counsel, After discussion, again some court said ’’ you argue today, glad you. want to it I will to hear Coun- be sel responded day. not that The court argue he could it ruled open longer that it would because keep this matter not going try give decision, prompt was the court alleged many it to to make contemnors court owed per- granted and was prompt decision. Counsel then asked for a support file an of his motion mission to affidavit argument, pur- purpose for the a continuance continuance Procedure, predi- the Code Civil suant to section counsel had been elected to the cated fact January 3, Legislature, which would convene at Sacramento 1949, approximately for four weeks. and continue in session member The affidavit stated that counsel had been elected a January Legislature 3, convene on state which would necessary him Sacramento; it was therefore he not attend the session and that did to the trial consent or hearing proceedings before the before then court days following final expiration adjournment, next legislative or the recess of more than 35 commencement of days. Legislature on out, As turned the state convened January January 29, 3, 1949; recessed on reconvened July adjournment on March until and continued session 2, 1949. (§ 595) counsel at statute invoked available to only attorney applies party

the time. It or an when pro- Legislature objects record is a member apply unless ceeding does not hearing, with a trial then exceeding 35 Legislature the in a not be session or recess days. day, nor was the On counsel not a member that was Legislature in session or in recess. right do not a under section

Petitioners now assert They deprive operated 595. to claim denial of motion the them right by counsel, of denial of representation the a due process. in a civil argument We do not so view it. Oral proceeding jury, privilege, a tried before the without a is court right, parties by not a is in its which accorded the court the privilege, peti- discretion. the court but Here did accord that (not tioners sought postponement long instead a duration less days event) type proceeding than 30 which in a requires go the law all reason- shall a conclusion with ahead to expedition. during able addition, In the the record shows that course of the trial the the entertained and received court expression every benefit of the views of counsel stage. jurisdic- way impaired Denial of motion in no tion of proceed. to court Propriety

7. The Company Joinder Union Oil of Proceeding. Party Respondent as a in this petitioners joined The Company Union Oil of Cali- they fornia as party respondent applied a when for the writ review. In company their briefs claim that the is not a real party in party interest nor a whose interest would directly by be proceeding; affected this therefore, proper not a party. They urge that proceeding be dismissed as to company. company, The upon the other claims hand, it is proper party joined a appropriately respondent. and was as a petitioners’ argument contempt burden of is a proceeding is pro- criminal nature and that a criminal ceeding prosecuted authority People must be private person. argument state a That if strictly would be sound this were a proceeding, criminal which company, person protec- it is not. The a for whose temporary tion restraining granted, was order would be beneficially “party a qualified interested” and under thus 582 an apply- of Civil Procedure 1069 of the Code

section review, if trial court had for a writ of appellate court ground that the contempt proceeding dismissed the reason and was invalid for some temporary jurisdiction of the court to company desired to test the 20 (Taylor Superior Court, dismissal. v. order of make the Superior Court, 1].) In v. P.2d Sheldon Cal.2d [125 pro- was held that Cal.App.2d 945], P.2d it [108 removing special administrator ceeding review an order person stead, is a real appointing another in his the latter party respondent. These proper therefore a in interest and having petitioners propriety principles demonstrate respondent herein. joined company party as a petitioners argument, corollary phase to this of their As a suggestion that answering make the in their brief plaintiff in the attorneys for the improper permit that “the contempt proceeding, i.e., prosecute action par- attorneys representing prosecution of this ease permitted,” and be party in the case in chief cannot tisan so to for them highly improper prejudicial “it ” prosecution such petitioners claim that do. It is not clear We judgment. jurisdiction to enter deprived the court not. entertain no doubt that it did point by amicus curiae the additional In brief filed prosecu- policy permit the against public is made that it is by private individuals without contempt proceeding tion of a attorney. We find cooperation of the district consent or the Taylor authority merit, upon the point to be without cases collected Superior Court, supra, 244, Cal.2d v. 35. Contempt, section Jurisprudence 936, in 5 California every respect hereby is affirmed The order under review only fol- except the provisions, all save and and as to of its hereby (1) provi- The lowing provisions, which are annulled: Union, the adjudged the Local of said order which sions contempt guilty of Frank M. Union, and Silva International alleged in the affidavit September 27, 1948, as done for acts (2) 14, 1948; Diehl which was filed October of Robert C. Union, adjudged Local which provisions of said order Kenny, Casey, P. Union, Frank M. James International Bullock, Silva, Jr., II. M. Montell Phillips, Frank Herman contempt guilty Page, Walter V. Holt C. Curtis affidavit of 28, 1948, alleged as in the September acts done 14, (3) 1948; filed October Hemmen which was II. G. Bullock H. adjudged Montell provisions of said order which guilty 4, contempt alleged for acts done October Ritchey, of Donald which was filed the affidavit October 14, 1948. J.,

Bray, concurred. PETERS, J.—I dissent. P. concur and Except particular, everything I one concur with is fully majority opinion. opinion said and decided That fairly facts, and, except respect, in this states one correctly applies disagree the law I with to those facts. majority only contempt disposition with their order against upon Briggs complaint. Prank M. Silva based It my is opinion support finding is that there no evidence to restraining that Silva had notice of the order when these acts were committed, restraining and therefore did not violate the order. Briggs complaint

The charged Silva and others with certain acts in restraining alleged violation order to have been September 22, committed on I 1948. have no at all doubt supports finding the evidence that Silva committed the charged majority opinion acts. The evidence in the recited demonstrates certainty. question that to a The is whether the supports evidence finding provi- that Silva knew of the sions of the order when the acts committed. This ele- proof ment of was indispensable. The proof burden of rested on asserting knowledge prove those it. majority concede that there no direct evidence of

knowledge part on September 22,1948, of Silva on or before but hold that indulged trial in a court reasonable in- knowledge ference that then had on Silva date. This following inference is based facts: directly 1. When if asked he knew of September 22, not, Silva testified that he did gain knowledge that he did not such until October 6th 7th when deputy first told sheriff. Earlier in the trial he had Sep- testified as to events which occurred on certain tember During testimony, 15th. if when he had asked knowledge injunction September of the on 15t.h—andno date was then involved—he testified that he then did not knowledge, have such but that later he found out from a deputy sheriff, injunction who told him about the “and that was, say, about, say, maybe I should or week so after this happened, maybe; I am not sure now.” When confronted testimony he had testified that he did not after

with this must knowledge 22d, he “You on the testified: have such was—might be a I remember I said sure what time wasn’t ’’ week, weeks, might be weeks. might be two three by majority This an admission from which is treated reasonably that Silva had the infer trial court could day requisite September 22d, week to the knowledge on be into September after This evidence cannot distorted 15th. knowledge the 22d. This case an admission that Silva on had quasi character, proof is is on criminal and the burden of sup- quoted At asserting knowledge. best, those evidence conjecture might have ports guess, or that Silva surmise requsite knowledge 22d, but no reasonable had predicated thereon. to that effect can be inference given majority opinion 2. weight, Considerable is in the setting forth terms of placards the evidence that small restraining posted entrance, at each and that picketed admittedly, prior 22d, near various Silva may plant. guess A made that he have to the entrances is majority seen notices. it taxes “human state that signs credulity” to believe did not read the because that Silva opportunity he had to read He testified he them. them, is of his testi- did read and there no contradiction mony. testimony court, if his was disbelieved the trial Even acquire was, opportunity knowledge as it apparently is mere knowledge, to be for where element proof substituted proof proof opportunity meet the is essential? Does proof? I not. burden of think relating In

3. the statement of facts acts committed great emphasis Silva is laid the evidence that Silva Casey, restraining knew of the a union official who knew order, frequently Casey’s company and that Silva was seen Casey prior implied, apparently, 22d. It must is restraining order and that Silva have told Silva about the If proper must have learned of it in this fashion. this is the interpretation majority opinion, the reached conclusion acquir- certainly Again, proof opportunity is not sound. knoivledge. ing knowledge proof cannot be substituted guilt beyond carrying concept association far This permissible limits. separately these bits of evidence be considered

Whether logical reasonable basis for together no furnish provisions knew of the inference Silva my majority, opinion, indulged the 22d. The have conjecture guess, mere surmise and on this issue. majority opinion length sets forth at the evidence showing prohibited that Silva committed several acts. Undoubtedly, he committed those acts. Undoubtedly, he com- only mitted acts that violated restraining order, but constituted violations of criminal They law. bad wrongful acts and charged acts. But he is not with simply committing charged those acts. He is violating with the terms restraining order. He cannot be held to have violated order unless he knew of it. key This is the my issue. opinion, asserting In those knowledge such failed prove portion it. This of the order should be annulled. respects

In all agree I with majority opinion. No. 17853. Dist., Apr. Second [Civ. Div. One. 1951.] B. CHAPMAN, N. Appellant, v. A. L. GIPSON, Respondent.

Case Details

Case Name: Oil Workers International Union v. Superior Court

Court Name: California Court of Appeal

Date Published: Apr 18, 1951

Citation: 230 P.2d 71

Docket Number: Civ. 14088

Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.