Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Employees, Laundry Drivers & Helpers Local No. 88

statutory powers, properly its exercised the exercise of by the statute. conferred discretion

The order is affirmed.

Gibson, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, Peters, J., McComb, J., C. J., White, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition rehearing February for a was denied 17, 1960. 25143. In Bank. Jan. 26, A. No.

[L. 1960.] (a CLEANERS, Respondent, PETRI Corporation), INC. EMPLOYEES, AUTOMOTIVE LAUNDRY DRIVERS 88, Appellant. AND HELPERS LOCAL NUMBER Hackler, Stevenson, Hackler Ansell and Her- & Stevenson & Appellant. for bert M. Ansell Rutan, Lindsay, Dahl, Smedegaard, Tucker, Howell & McCray, Dahl, Severson, Zang, Werson, W. W. W. Milford Berke & Larson and Nathan R. Berke

for Respondent. Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon and Rummel as Charles A. Respondent. Amici on behalf Curiae Employees, Laun-

TRAYNOR, J.Defendant Automotive Helpers (hereinafter re- dry Number Drivers and Local trial defendant) appeals to from two of the ferred orders under granted plaintiff's motion the Jurisdictional court. One 1115-1120,1122) preliminary for a (Lab. Code, Strike Act §§ recognition; the other injunction against strike defendant’s injunction preliminary motion for a denied defendant’s plaintiff instead of the compel with defendant Employees (hereinafter Independent Petri Association of company Association), alleged union. called the engaged commerce, plaintiff is not interstate Since (29 141-197 Management Relations Act the Labor U.S.C. §§ is the (1947)) applicable. governing statute Juris not is a labor that there is Act. contends dictional Strike dispute Plaintiff to which the Association as defendant and between plain bargaining agent of organization shall be exclusive picketing therefore violates tiff's and defendant’s there has no violation act. contends that been Defendant ground is not on the that the Association meaning of the act. within the passage moot time. This issue hás become proceeded Although plaintiff urges matter that if the had permanent injunction, relating the for facts trial have been because mation the Association would irrelevant one-year limitation in section that limitation any pro from the date “of the commencement of measured ’’ chapter. ceeding brought An action is commenced under complaint Proc., 350.) (Code is filed. Civ. Plaintiff when § January 14, 1958, complaint on and all the facts bear filed its independence place ing on of the Association’s took the issue January from 1958. June 1957 provides in part: of the Labor Section 1117 Code any organization’ organiza- herein, “As ‘labor means used representation employee any agency or committee or tion or employees any participate, in local unit thereof which purpose, part, dealing in in whole or exists employers concerning grievances, wages, labor disputes, hours organization labor employment work, or conditions of in in part, financed whole or been or to have to be is not found employer or or controlled with, dominated interfered year of the commencement one within any employer association plaintiff chapter. brought under any proceeding respect to estab- issue with affirmative of the shall have lishing organization’ as defined a ‘labor the existence ’’ herein. jurisdictional strike is unlaw- provides that a Section a strike as 1118 defines ful and section perform for an work refusal “. . a concerted . employer’s opera- any interference with concerted or other controversy two or arising of a between out business, tion or of them has or should organizations as to which more labor collectively with an em- right to the exclusive have ployer arising employees them, or on behalf of his organizations controversy or more labor of a between two out right the exclusive or should have as to which of them has employer.” perform for an members work have its was with, If the Association “interfered dominated 1 by plaintiff, organization” is not a “labor controlled” meaning of section within the jurisdictional 1117 and there has been no meaning

strike within the of section 1118. The determination of this issue is crucial to appeal defendant’s granting preliminary injunction from the order against deciding In defendant’s strike. issue we must first interpret with, the terms “interfered in dominated or controlled” light interpretation and then of our determine whether plaintiff proving sustained its burden of that the Association organization. ais labor construing

Federal decisions (a) section 8 (1) and (2) Management Labor persuasive Relations Act2 are interpreting language policy section for the (See Porterfield, two acts are similar. re 28 Cal.2d finding 1Since defendant does attack the trial court’s '1 ’ ’ part by plaintiff, Association was not financed whole or we part no occasion to consider that of section 1117. practice employer— 2“It shall be an unfair labor for an (1) with, restrain, to interfere or coerce in the exercise guaranteed rights title; section 7 of this (2) to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration support financial or contribute it____” 460 City 706, Nutter v. 675]; 119 P.2d A.L.R. Santa 167 [168 Monica, Cal.App.2d 298 292, 741].) The federal 74 [168 singled typical by cases ont activities have condemned Findings employer an an inside

federal act. dominated usually employer union are based on obvious intrusion such as by employees company time statements on recognize property that he will not an outside union but will association, discharging employees an inside who deal with openly leading solicit for the drive union, members the outside an supplying for association and lists inside literature employees’ addresses, permitting organizational names and meetings company property, directly soliciting mem- for bers the inside association. National Relations (E.g., Labor Assn., Dyeing 918, v. Board 318 310 U.S. S.Ct. [60 Bradford 1226]; note, Employer-Dominated 84 Unions— L.Ed. see Illusory 283-290.) Self-Organization, 278, 40 Columb.L.Rev. mani interference include that constitute Activities employer that he one union over the favors festations Assn, T. Labor M. D. M. L. v. National (International other 83, 72, 85 L.Ed. Board, 311 78 S.Ct. U.S. 50] Relations [61 employer’s choice between unions suggestions as to the [Slight consequences among men know telling may effect strong National employer’s displeasure.]; incurring that Co., 584, 311 600 Board v. Link-Belt U.S. Relations Labor employer’s 358, 85 L.Ed. [Intimations S.Ct. 368] [61 may potent outright as threats though subtle, be as preference, union interrogation of as to their discharge.]); discharge coupled especially with threats of when sympathies, promises economic union or supporting outside for company (Top Manu remaining loyal to the Mode benefits 1290-1292, affirmed, National 1273, Co., facturing 97 N.L.R.B. [cert, den., Epstein, F.2d 482 Board v. 203 Relations Labor 1068]]; Joy Mills 98 v. 474, L.Ed. Silk 347 U.S. 912 S.Ct. [74 App. Board, 732, F.2d Relations 185 740 National Labor [87 L.Ed. 734, 914 S.Ct. 95 den., 341 U.S. D.C. [71 360] [cert. ]; management of union withdrawal solicitation 1350] Board, (Texarkana v. Labor Relations Bus. National letters Co. Board v. United 483; Labor Relations 480, National 119 F.2d den., Co., 347 U.S. 934 S.Ct. 52, 208 F.2d 55 Biscuit [cert. advantages upon unequal conferred 629, 1085]]); 98 L.Ed. union, such as the outside the inside union are denied Relations property (National Labor company time use of 465, Relations Wemyss, 471; 212 National Labor v. F.2d Board Co., Board v. Summers Fertilizer 251 F.2d 518); and hasty recognition union, the inside contrasted (National marked reluctance to the outside union Clark, 342). Moreover, Labor Relations Board v. 176 F.2d picket when an behind inside is formed close lines scrutiny genesis required. (National of its Labor Relations Paper Co., Board Brown Mill den., F.2d 871 [cert. 1416]]; U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. National Labor Co., supra, Relations Board v. Fertilizer 518.3) Summers at Circuit, finding employer though The Fourth domination even employees signed stating the an affidavit that their choice was “ pointed coerced, [sjeldom not out that does the domination employee representation and interference with Act the prohibits take the form of threats or coercion. More often guise friendly is to be in the found cooperation; .” . . (American Corp. Enka v. Board, National Labor Relations 60, Virtually 62.) 119 F.2d all of these condemned activities present in occurred case. The trial finding court’s the Association was not with, interfered dominated or con by plaintiff trolled can ap be attributed to its failure to preciate legal significance plaintiff’s (See conduct. Madison, Estate 453, 26 630]; Sapp Cal.2d P.2d v. [159 Barenfeld, 515, 34 Cal.2d P.2d ; Pipeline [212 233] Pacific Const. Co. State Board Equalization, 49 Cal.2d 735- ; P.2d McNeil Retirement, v. Board 729] Cal.2d 281].) 284-285 undisputed plaintiff’s evidence establishes back ground hostility anjr to Jeffrey A.F.L.-C.I.O. union. Win frey, plaintiff’s supervisor, who once as served route testified personally installing tape that he aided in recorder drivers’ locker room to response discover the men’s to a union organizational in 1952, Petri, plaintiff’s drive and that Otto president, any him not instructed to hire union men. Plaintiff operated shop has approximately as nonunion since 1950. opposed It any concedes that Otto Petri is to opposition A.F.L.-C.I.O. union that his and is well to known employees. these, twenty- Of ten were route drivers and language appropriate 3The court’s to case: “It cannot be denied right employees independent have a to either choose unaffiliated solely composed union of fellow or a union affiliated with a organization, national or international the initiation but where such after choice occurs organizational drives other unions and after recognition any unions, demand for one of these form of benefit con ’ ’ particular closely tributed to á union must examined. dyeing cleaning, pressing, plant at one worked inside attempted July During of 1957 defendant machines. June employees. drivers, hut not inside organize plaintiff’s to signed authorization cards with defendant. Nine drivers during first activities, Plaintiff knew defendant’s questioned one of Eraser, Archie July, Petri week Otto sympathies. Eraser, a witness drivers, as his union to he did plaintiff, that Petri indicated “. . . testified any anything union as far as to do with want his sign going present was not contract with mind, he union that if I taken the union had international go just, take why I either my then would have as choice ’’ him, Owing to its stay have either choice. union or coupled interrogation, with a threat effect, such direct plainly coercive discharge a result of union con- membership, Moreover, when to re- Eraser decided stitutes interference. gave prepared union, Petri him a of with- letter nounce sign. drawal its co- management August 1, 1957, Around continued Wolford, two by questioning ercive interviews Larson refused other about their union When drivers, status. gave ter- union, plaintiff them week’s

withdraw from the placed on its August a notice notice, mination but on is uncontra- offering them There bulletin board reinstatement. change testimony not indicate dicted that this offer did plaintiff’s that he return Larson refused to attitude. testified to me that he wasn’t because Petri had it clear “Mr. made going accept back to work it would to the union so if I went no conditions with union. ...” He be under the same and subsequent the plant, that a visit to stated on the occasion of Philbert, plaintiff’s manager, talking him some of the saw to way just him that soon the drivers and told would as “. . .he plant felt that remain around the of his I I wouldn’t inter- suggestion there is no that was drivers.” Larson Since rupting can work, the drivers’ statement mean that plaintiff exposed to supporters, did not want its men union therefore, opposition organiza- that its ánd, to defendant’s accepted reinstatement, tional had not Wolford efforts ceased. sought on the but went strike with other drivers and later tem- porary employment elsewhere. August plaintiff by 6,1957, mail

On defendant notified it had authorization cards from nine of the ten drivers and meeting management. requested meeting a with the At a on attorney plaintiff’s stated that Petri would not August 7th, meeting Following this with the recognize union. union meeting a Petri called of the drivers and representatives, pressed ex- hope following work as would usual the expected picket day despite an line. Fraser testified that some sign plaintiff’s to drivers had refused withdrawal letter purpose meeting give that he to understood was “a to them last chance” withdraw. Wolford testified that attorney plaintiff’s plaintiff “just stated drivers that going agent.” as bargaining wasn’t union began, plaintiff Thus, before the strike with interfered by compelling of choice at least drivers’ freedom three them joining continuing to choose between the union and to work plaintiff. morning August eight 8, 1957, On the ten drivers unanimously in the officesand met union voted to strike. One previously them, Max had Williams, signed a withdrawal began, When the letter. strike nine of the drivers did not report plaintiff Later in the day, work. delivered truck to Fraser at his continuously day home he drove his route that After week, thereafter. about a two strikers, Cohee, Williams and returned to work. Six drivers replaced who remained the union were nonunion employees. Bard, previously Charles had for plaintiff, worked was August supervisor. 8th as the hired drivers’ Shortly route he began, after the strike talked several times with Petri plaintiff’s attorney well as with and John plaintiff’s Philbert, plant manager, forming about an inside They union. told him that such union would to be formed legal.” “in order for it to be Petri said that the Bowen strike4 by an had been broken inside union. Philbert asked him which loyal plaintiff men would be if an inside union formed, were suggested Burns, and Bard Don the driver signed who had not operate Bowen 4The Cleaners are located Santa Ana and a business plaintiff’s. April, 1957, similar to route drivers went on their March a number of the Bowen recognition strike secure of another union as agent. peaceful picket Some time after strike ing began, composed replacement an association drivers was largely through formed, Shortly assistance one N.B. Header. thereafter, case) company attorney (who represents plaintiff also in this advising wrote to union that a second union had been formed recognized by company, jurisdictional dispute existed, that a picketing. complied instructed the cease When the union litigation demand, no resulted. They him that authorization card. warned he could a union formation of such because he was on not initiate the supervisory staff. that he had a conversation with Petri some Burns testified him September that Petri told that “. . was time there . something a man that to do with the Bowen that he strike, had something negotiating was thing with or had to with him, do some- gonna get in that manner and that he was one girls one of in the office him drivers and ... meet with company to see if we could form unit.” Burns further requested keep him testified that Petri secret, the conversation anyone knowing that “he didn’t want about it.” Al- though that he Header, Petri testified did know the outside organizer employee’s who had formed at association deny plant, suggested Bowen he did not that he the idea of a company join unit to Burns. Burns later refused to the Asso- voluntarily plaintiff’s employ ciation and left during the hear- ing. He stated that he left because “I don’t think that we got any company benefits union. I think don’t we are gonna get any my it, opinion.” benefits from not in man, A maintenance Roland Matthews, testified that he up undertook to set plant union, primarily an inside get . .to ’’ get settled down and over the tension and so forth. He September learned of the Bowen strike around Shortly 1st. thereafter, plaintiff he asked Philbert if negotiate would independent Philbert days union. told him a few later that got it would. Thereafter Matthews in touch with Bowen, him referred to Header. Matthews talked to Header on the telephone but did not meet at that time.

Some time in December Matthews read a newspaper account independent the formation of an association at laundry Angeles. spoke Los He president of that association about the a group. He testified he had a rumor heard picketing plaintiff’s defendant’s plant would increase after approached Christmas. He Petri him told “. . . that ready I was go ahead with the independent formation of the association if he was still in it, accord with or if I start what assurance I would could I assure the that he part would take no in it, meaning that there would be no against discrimination anyone part did take in it, and he told me there wouldn’t be. If I needed farther assurance to tell them to come ’ ’ and ask him. Philbert later instructed Bard to inform “met the inside union might inquire that the who drivers repeated complete company.” Petri’s approval of the the with recognize contrasted the Association that he would assurances to the em- clear defendant made his refusal with ployees only an unaffiliated plaintiff with would accept Thus, the plaintiff forced its workers to organization. approval plaintiff’s stamp of before that bore forego al- or to collective formed was even together. a appointment and took an with Header Matthews made plaintiff’s employees from of the names and addresses

list At their first company bulletin board show Header. the meeting, shortly Christmas, after Header told Matthews organize employees helping to the Petri would be fee for his inquired paid his would be whether fee Matthews $250 and paid and testified that no or Petri. Matthews the fee himself repay two arranged to him. Header selected drivers one had days employees from the list. a few and two inside Within employees at met Matthews and Header these four apartment building arranged for organiza- an Matthews’ January meeting 8,1958. Plaintiff refused Matthews’ tional on meeting company property. request the He then to hold away arranged plant a hall from the to rent a block for the days meeting, spoke meeting. A before he to Burns few joining the Association. Burns stated Matthews about getting pickets “. . . if I was interested asked me off petition among also the front. ...” Matthews employees stating: circulated undersigned agree go along “We the forming Independent Laundry an plant Dry Cleaning em- Association driver salesmen and signed ployees Cleaners.” Of 18 Petris petition, Archie Fraser was driver. Normally routes, stayed making on their either the men p.m. soliciting customers, new until 5 Bard tes- deliveries him tell the drivers tified that Philbert instructed to come January meeting p.m. in at 4 8th to and that “. . . attend anything supposed ‘We ” to know said, he smiled and are not meeting.’ Philbert, pursuant to Petri’s about this Bard and orders, building meeting in which the was walked around being prevent organiza- held trouble. That the Association’s plaintiff’s meeting guarded by manager tional was and its plaintiff’s supervisor having indicates interest the inside (Compare unit formed. Labor Board v. National Relations Corp., 843-844, Vermont American Furn. F.2d hold presence employer’s plant ing manager, treasurer and lounge adjacent superintendent lobby in a hotel to a in which holding organizational meeting the outside union was im proper employer.) surveillance began p.m., meeting, The at 5 was attended all replaced eight strikers, of whom had drivers, four employees. explained about seven of the inside Header upon organization. group agreed single or- method ganization separate bargaining with two units and elected Archie Fraser chairman the drivers and Matthews chair- gave man for the inside workers. Header Matthews form demanding recognition. letter to use Matthews took the plaintiff’s p.m. plain- letter to main officearound 6 and one of employeestyped copy gave tiff’s letter. then Matthews time, except it to Petri. At that none the drivers Archie writing join Fraser had stated in that he to wished As- sociation. attorney notified a letter Plaintiff’s defendant dated January 9, 1958, that “as of this date a contract has been ’’ " plaintiff into Association; entered between and the that all employees Cleaners, Inc., of Petri are members of said picketing Association”; and that defendant’s a constituted violation of Jurisdictional Strike Act. January a testified that on 10th letter Bard arrived from attorney plaintiff’s to addressed Otto Petri. Petri then sent sign him paper. for Archie Fraser told to a certain Fraser leaving upon so, and Petri’s officemet one did of the drivers signed. him he had who asked what After a discussion, short to Fraser returned Petri’s officeto paper reread the and told recognition agreement. a the driver was Fraser’s statement “. off a . started bombshell the back . because the drivers nobody given authority sign that Archie anything said had to ’’ like that. agreement, January 9th, provides dated plaintiff that recognizes the Association “as the bargain- exclusive collective ing agency salesmen,” all plaintiff for route that promises “to attempt sit and consult with said down Association and working agreement controlling wages, arrive at a hours and fringe working other conditions and benefits” and not any organization period other labor for days of promises the Association and that not to strike affiliate with days. for 120 other Fraser testified on any of the terms requested he not had cross-examination recognition and that none except clause contract for their employees to the other provisions were submitted its approval. meeting all its 1958, plaintiff called January 14, On time, plaintiff’s during working At hours. they stating that sign an affidavit asked them all counsel belonged “freely Association was Association; that the undersigned employees, voluntarily with- the domination, formed or interference from coercion, aid, financial out rep- not wish to be Cleaners, Inc.”; did Petri that he testified stated to the Bard resented defendant. sign at that time if he not the affidavit group that he would signed present, but All the drivers were two were driver. why Following meeting, asked Bard Philbert affidavit. sign signatures not to when their the drivers he had influenced Bard that he company. favorable to the stated would be relinquish thought weapon, their sole the drivers should reply. Philbert did not obtaining affidavit, plaintiff commencedthis action After January requested temporary 14th, restraining order plaintiff’s pickets. request to remove the The court denied attorney contended that the absence of after defendant’s covering wages, working contract hours or conditions created as to the bona of the Association. At doubt tides about 5:30 day, p.m. attorney, with his the same Petri conferred then Fraser that he sent Archie Fraser. Petri told wanted immediately, negotiate a contract with the drivers and asked by January suggestions submit a list of Fraser 15th. day granted. request Fraser’s for an additional was On Janu- ary separate meeting employees meeting of all and a 15th a company were on the bulletin of the drivers advertised board company property—privileges held on to the and extended again Association, but not to defendant. Bard instructed the plant p.m. to return at At the meeting, drivers first presented p.m., constitution, held after 5 Header forms of a bylaws, and a union contract. These documents were turned meeting, At their the over to committee. own drivers made suggestions, compiled written which individual Fraser plaintiff. submitted to January 16th all drivers but one met from 6 to :30 On the Philbert, plaintiff’s p.m. company property Petri, on with at- torney supervisor. Bard, the route Bard that testified one why negotiations being pushed of the the drivers asked were thing appeared so fast and that the whole to him stated ”... just of, question getting pickets that it a matter was very getting plain- Later, off and little back return for it.” attorney get papers he tiff’s stated that ”. . . would back quickly possible everybody as sign as because—in that order could present—to give stronger

the contract order to case- suggestions in court.” Discussion centered around drivers’ attorney and the Bowen contract as a model. Plaintiff’s that he stated standing would draft a contract with the line under- group. plaintiff signed haste striking contract drivers out in stands contrast with that negotiations, the fact there have been no no plans company. plant between the inside morning Bard also that testified the next Philbert ”... me help called outside and said he’d thank me for the like to given couple points that I had them on a that he and Mr. prior definitely Petri had been that afraid that I was wrong influencing wrong way side and the drivers glad were meeting.” to see that I had taken a different attitude at that This conversation was the that third Bard reported between him and first, Philbert. The it will be re- called, was Philbert’s instruction Bard advise drivers plaintiff completely approved of the Association. The place presentation why plaintiff’s affidavit, took after second Philbert when asked Bard he influenced had the drivers sign purport not to the document. The clear of these conver- plaintiff’s plant manager sations between super- and its route urge visor was to Bard to support influence the drivers plaintiff against defendant. Bard testified for defendant under subpoena. He stated Petri him prior informed to his appearance as a witness that considering Petri was the aboli- job tion of his supervisor, route but that Bard could take one of the if were available. routes Plaintiff received a January draft the contract on 20th. Although January 20th, dated signed was the drivers company or the until morning January 22nd, the date hearing on the order to show cause. Petri testified that he February wanted the 3rd, contract dated but the drivers January wanted it effective 20th. Of the seven drivers who signed contract, among original three were ten drivers replacements and four were of the strikers. The contract con- recognition tains a security a union clause, clause, a no-strike

469 not to affiliate with Association promise clause, a relating provisions wages, organization, and labor other holidays. hours, vacations light interpreta- evidence,5 of our undisputed viewed The plaintiff as a matter of law establishes tion of section Thus, to reiterate with” the Association. “interfered required role plaintiff’s departures from its more obvious of plant manager president conducted its impartiality, giving drivers the “choice” interrogations, several coercive plain- membership being renouncing discharged; letter of withdrawal prepared its drivers provided tiff initially discharged two organization from defendant’s plaintiff repeatedly an- withdraw; drivers who refused bargain at defendant, not while that would nounced encouraging Association the formation of the same time enjoyed plaintiff’s group through its assurances the inside plaintiff permitted Association complete approval, meetings property bulletin at all follow- to use its board privilege ing organizational meeting—a it did not extend to defendant. clearly interference, plaintiff’s conduct constitutes Since a labor within the mean- the Association was not ing jurisdictional There was therefore no of section 1117. preliminary granting a section 1118 and the order strike under injunction against strike must be reversed. defendant's deny- trial question remains whether the court erred injunction compel ing preliminary motion for a defendant’s plaintiff as the exclusive defendant plaintiff’s agent for drivers. employer’s whether or not to with a An decision long organization has been this state labor determined Early of economicforces. eases established the free interaction proper objectives legality of concerted activities (J. Building principles Parkinson v. under commonlaw F. Co. 1027,16 Council, Ann.Cas. 154 599-600 P. Trades Cal. [98 Union, 156 550]; 21 Pierce v. Stablemen’s L.R.A. N.S. 324]). of the Labor 920-923 70, 75-76 P. Sections Cal. [103 misplaced upon its a conflict affidavits to raise 5Plaintiff’s reliance eonelusionary Affidavits that terms. its affidavits are drawn because (Moon Moon, merely v. 62 Cal. conclusions of law are not evidence state Cal.App.2d 596]; People Thompson, App.2d 185, v. P.2d [144 (Coen 600]) facts 664 Watson, a conflict as to the do create Cal.App. 297, 525]). P. imposed Code6 certain employer only restrictions “to balance the possible industrial so it equation, far as is so, to do by placing employer employee and equal on an basis.” (Shafer Registered v. Union, Pharmacists 379, 16 Cal.2d 385 403].) P.2d Thus, provides section [106 921 promises in yellow-dog embodied contracts shall not en be forced. provides 922 any person Section who coerces another to enter into such a contract as a condition of em ployment guilty is of a misdemeanor. 923 Section announces public policy of uphold this state “to the freedom of organize to enter and into collective contracts for protection.” (Levy their Superior own Court, v. 692, 15 Cal.2d 704 770, P.2d 129 956].) A.L.R. These [104 chapter, "As used 920: unless the context 6Section otherwise indicates, promise, ‘promise’ undertaking, contract, agree includes or ’’ express oral, implied. ment, written or or whether "Every promise August 21, 1933, made after Section 921: between any employee prospective employee employer, prospective and his or em- contrary any public ployer person policy party is or other to if either any following: promises thereto of ‘ ‘ join (a) organization join or To to remain member of a labor or to employer organization, a member of an or remain join "(b) organization to not to remain a Not or member of a labor employer organization. or of an ‘‘ (e) employment an To withdraw from relation in the event that he joins organization. employer or remains member a labor or of an any promise granting legal not afford basis "Such shall for the or equitable against party any promise, against court relief to such or any advise, urge, induce, persons other or without fraud or violence thereof, party disregard either to or threat thereto act of such ’’ promise. "Any person agent Section 922: or or officer thereof who coerces or any person agreement, compels join securing employment verbal, enter an to into written or not to organization, a member of labor or become a condition of continuing employment person ’’ guilty is of a misdemeanor. interpretation application chapter, 923: "In Section and of this public policy is of this State declared as follows: "Negotiation terms and conditions labor should result from voluntary agreement employer employees. between Governmental authority permitted encouraged employers organize has to in the corporate capital dealing and other forms control. In with such em- unorganized ployers, helpless the individual worker to exercise actual liberty protect labor, thereby of contract and to his freedom of acceptable employment. terms and conditions obtain Therefore it is necessary association, that the individual workman have full freedom of designation representatives self-organization, choosing, of his own negotiate employment, the terms his and conditions of and that he shall interference, restraint, employers labor, from the free coercion of agents, designation representatives in the or their organization of such inor self- purpose or in concerted other activities for the of collective ’’ protection. bargaining or mutual aid or other promises join independent preclude do sections Registered Union, supra, organizations (Shafer Pharmacists v. shop 386-387), contracts, or union at closed or concerted (McKay activities obtain such contracts. v. Retail Auto. ; L. Union 16 Cal.2d P.2d S. No. [106 373] Registered Union, supra, 387; v. Pharmacists at C. S. Shafer Smith Met. Lyons, Market Co. v. Cal.2d P.2d Corp. Teamsters, International 414]; Park & T. I. etc. of 599, 609-612 1426].) 27 Cal.2d A.L.R. employer place duty Neither do on the affirmative bargain, opening as the sentence of section 923 makes clear: “Negotiation of terms conditions of labor should result ’’ voluntary agreement employer employees. from between with a recognition An faced union’s demand yielding still has “the choice of to the union’s demands or continuing to endure the interference with its business rela (union’s) tions which (C. activities caused.” S. Smith Lyons, supra, 397.) Met. Market v.Co. at (Lab. Code, The Jurisdictional Act Strike §§1115- 1122)7 1120, competition designed, was not to diminish free jurisdictional hereby “A strike as herein defined is 1115: 7Section policy public against of the State of California and is to declared hereby unlawful.” to be declared 1116; “Any injured injury by person or threatened with vio- Section injunctive any provisions shall be to hereof entitled relief lation of of any ease, damages resulting proper and to recover in a there- therefrom ’’ competent jurisdiction. any of from court organization’ any herein, organi “As used ‘labor means Section 1117: representation any agency employee any committee or or local zation or unit thereof employees participate, purpose, and exists for in which concerning dealing employers grievances, part, or in with labor in whole of work, employment disputes, wages, or conditions of which labor whole hours found be or to have been financed in or in is not to with, employer any part, or dominated controlled or interfered any year pro employer within one commencement of association plaintiff brought chapter. ceeding shall under this affirma 1 establishing respect existence of a to labor tive the issue with organization’ as defined herein. any person, association, organization, herein, ‘person’ means “As used association, organiza- corporation, unincorporated partnership, or labor ’’ tion. chapter, ‘jurisdictional strike’ means “As used this Section 1118: employer perform for an or other con- to work a concerted refusal business, arising operation employer’s out an or with certed interference organizations controversy to which labor two or more of a of an between right bargain collectively to have the exclusive them has or should arising employees them, employer out of which of his on behalf of organizations controversy two as to between or more 472 industry,

between labor and but to release an innocent em ployer caught between the rival claims of two or more labor organizations. apply It not does unless there are at least two organizations” meaning 1117, “labor within the of section activity prohibited dispute out arises between them right bargain has employer as which the exclusive (Lab. or to have its members work for Code, ; him. 1118 § Seven-Up Grocery Union, etc. Co. v. etc. 40 368, Cal.2d 381 A.L.R,. 327].) may only The employer 33 not enjoin jurisdictional (Lab. Code, 1116) strike organization. but refuse § bargain with either Legislature It for the to determine whether volun tary bargaining displaced compelling should now be a rule bargain representatives with the of a employees. Recognizing hardly of his trial courts are boards, requests relief, labor relations defendant affirmative avowedly because so only the record is clear as raise issues But, Supreme as the law. United States Court observed argument, only similar “we write not for this case day alone, type (Carroll but for this Lanza, case.” 349 1183].) U.S. 413 S.Ct. 99 L.Ed. A host of problems compulsory attend Legis can appropriate lature resolve. What constitutes an bar (See gaining (a) (3) ; (i); (b) unit? §§ U.S.C. §§ 159.) majority’s (See How is the choice to be determined? (c) (1); U.S.C., §159.) Which constitute §9 majority, presently employed those relevant or those employed at employer’s preci the time the refusal to pitated Congress recently changed the strike? the federal majority. Management definition the relevant The Labor provided “Employees Relations Act on strike who ’’ are entitled to eligible reinstatement shall not be to vote. right perform or them has should have the exclusive to have its members ’ ’ employer. ivork an “Nothing chapter Section 1119: in this shall be construed to inter- subject bargaining prohibitions fere with collective herein set any voluntarily forth, prohibit becoming remaining nor to individual or organization, personally requesting labor member or from join organization. other individual ’ ’ “Any person organizes employee group Section 1122: who which is dominated, part, financed whole or in interfered with or or controlled employer any employer association, or as well such employer association, by any person shall be liable to suit injured thereby. injured party damages Said shall recover the sustained ’ ’ by Mm and the costs suit.

473 this rule U.S.C., 159.) Dissatisfaction (e) (3); 29 (§ § 9 Strike, During 16 U. an Economic Right to Vote (see, e.g., “Employees provision that the 1959 537) led to Chi.L.Rev. to reinstate- who are not entitled strike an economic engaged in regulations as the under eligible to vote ment shall pro- purposes and are consistent find Board shall twelve within conducted election Act of this visions (Labor-Man- of the strike.” commencement after the months 29 Act of U.S.C. Reporting Disclosure agement duty under 702.) The enforcement § necessary practicable because act has been federal statutory pro- guides have been machinery and administrative by enacting power usurp legislative court cannot This vided. Management Relations patterned on the Labor of law rules machinery neces- the administrative and it cannot create Act, sary workable. make such rules contends, of this however, that three decisions Defendant (Garmon Diego bargaining. compulsory v. San lead to court ; Chavez Council, P.2d 49 Cal.2d 595 Bldg. Trades [320 473] ; Retail Clerks’ Union P.2d Sargent, 52 801] v. Cal.2d [339 By 839].) rein- Court, 52 Superior Cal.2d v. Invoking of the Labor Code terpreting section in the case held Act, the court Garmon Strike Jurisdictional shop is an unlawful labor contract or union that a closed employees wish law none of the objective state when under The court’s conclusion join represented the union. or be agreement the shop union em- by signing closed rights “in employees’ ployer with his would interfere self-organization or in representatives or designation of . . . purpose bargain- of collective activities for other concerted (Lab. 923) in protection” Code, ing mutual aid or or other § directly contrary to rule was the settled violation of section 923 right engage of labor to not restrict that section 923 does shop. (Shafer activity to attain a closed or in concerted Union, supra, 387.) Furthermore, at Registered Pharmacists v. assumption that on the erroneous case was decided the Garmon illegal also state law was tortious under the conduct found question on the law, and it was reversed federal under Diego Bldg. v. pre-emption Trades Council San federal 773, 3 L.Ed.2d Garmon, S.Ct. U.S. 775]. supra, departed rules Sargent, this court from In Chavez forces and deter- free interaction economic based on the ac- pursued must be or not that collective mined majority cording employees directly wishes of the reasoning ease, employer involved. that Under the majority’s self-organiza- cannot interfere freedom of by agreeing bargain any agent tion majority’s other than the representative. may

chosen It follows that he not stultify majority’s by refusing choice at all. requirement Otherwise, majority rule, aiding instead of majority’s bargaining, the only efforts collective would benefit employer efficacy who could defeat the of the ma- jority’s representative. choice of a recog- Unless the majority’s representative, necessarily nizes the chosen he majority’s by preventing interferes with the freedom of choice practical its culmination. undertaking In to restate the law California, how- ever, beyond the Chavez case went the issue before the court. holding support To that the local ordinance there involved invalid, necessary only was it was decide concerted activity shop to secure closed or union contracts and contracts resulting protected part therefrom were as workman’s association, “full self-organization, freedom of designa- representatives choosing.” (Lab. tion of of his own Code, 923.) By going setting up system further and a new § majority law based rule labor of instead of the free interaction forces, the case economic would turn our trial courts into legislative guidance without necessary labor relations boards machinery. administrative may These difficulties not have been when the foreseen dicta applied in Chavez were Superior Retail Clerks’ Union v. supra, enjoin Court, activity concerted that was theretofore clearly legal. Since none of the there involved had designated picketing bargaining representa unions as their tives, problem determining no majority the relevant was presented. lay problems negative dormant this application case cannot escaped, however, Chavez when, positive case, this sought its corollaries are to be type case, enforced. this the trial court asked to sit as appropriateness labor board and determine the thus bargaining units, elections, certify majority rep conduct resentative, and direct collective bargaining. employers We required conclude are not engage in law to collective and that closed or shop agreements and concerted activities to them achieve in this are lawful state whether or not of the em- contrary agreements. If directly wish such ployees involved court, must Legislature, established, the is to be rule are, Union cases and Retail Clerks’ it. The Garmon enact with the it inconsistent therefore, Insofar as is overruled. disapproved. is expressed herein, the Chavez case views is injunctive plaintiff’s relief granting motion The order in- motion for denying defendant’s and the order reversed junctive is relief affirmed. Peters, J.,

Gibson, J., White, C. and concurred. J., Dissenting. On May SCHAUER, J., 19, 1959, Chaves majority of policy and effect statutes portance that the essential that he have “ tion [Pp. 186-187 Sargent, 52 Cal.2d 162 representatives ‘full freedom’ of ‘self-association’ and (Lab. Code, §§920-923, ^[14] court of group’s lawfully individual section 923 of 52 recognized of ‘his [339 Cal.2d.] workman have own of the Labor Code and related 1115-1122, choosing.’ selected following 801], It is negotiators we reviewed protection—that in the 1126), and But propositions: primary designa- is have also im- in- power the workman’s and freedom contract secure by employers, contract that for the ultimate terests with representa- individual workman the benefit each authorized power . tive shall be able to the collective of all.. . wield “ voluntarily employes 197 If become [P. [29] id.] (not organization’ members ‘labor financed or interfered thereby by employer, Code, 1117) their Lab. and have § bargaining agent, therein selected and authorized a such employer respective agent bargain for and the are free to legitimate objectives employer. The both workmen and agreement provisions ensuing may, course, collective include security, shop, for union membership, a union maintenance bargaining rights em- exclusive ployer. .. . in the of Organization “ his [P. selection union is the workman’s 198 ^[32] of his id.] bargaining right of the workman to agent right of self-determination. in the government participate that

and collective are but tools to end.... “ primary 203 is a are It rule that ‘courts [P. [37] id.] give ordinary according usual, effect bound to statutes

476 ’ employed framing (In import language them. re of the his Alpine 1500].) ... “ employes [Pp. (1928), 205-206 he [45, Cal. has 46] id.] 731, agreed with a union which For ^[3] an employer P. 947, 58 is, A.L.R notify by be, he his em- which knows to unauthorized and unwanted join represented ployes, they must such union and be by employment appear con- it or be dismissed from would subject stitute unlawful interference liability imposed by him to the section 1122. self-government goal “Industrial to be desired. Inso- problems specifically far as arise over which are not issues ‘ legislation by looking covered should be solved policy legislation fashioning remedy that will ’ policy. (See effectuate Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills ... U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 972].) ... “ footnote It should be that where an noted [P. id.] fairly has been selected employes employer (or of all the vote of an an affected craft group) or seeks security objective], lawful other [or organization acting employes the for may all such use lawful pressure (e.g., strike, forms of the picketing, etc.) to induce employer grant the that condition of labor. From what has in hereinabove been said the discussion sections 921 and 923 it is obvious that the freedom declared is the freedom from employer in association, organiza- interference such matters as representatives, tion through and selection end democratically representatives the chosen collective agreements may negotiated. workmen, having The had the opportunity freely participate in procedures, are, such by course, majority vote, bound the negotiated the and contract be the contract of all. will ...” Today differently majority disapprove constituted those Diego views overrule Garmon v. Bldg. San Trades Council (1958), 49 Cal.2d 595 473], P.2d and Retail Clerks’ Superior Union Court Cal.2d course, as a law, majority possess Of matter of the 839]. the power They to overrule the above cited cases. have so used wisely that power; whether or otherwise remains to be seen. my It is view that inevitably the action will set back, long for we know not how nor repereussively, how law-guided cause of peacefully negotiated settlements of industry.1 I think that disputes California labor suffer; majority’s suffer; employers will workmen will action prefer union leaders who public suffer; will unions and only union or- self-government suffer; will those under law ganizers responsibility law and who have who eschew under regard general welfare freedom of the indi- no prosper. vidual workman will appears implicit express

Each of facts in the “dis those approval” Sargent overruling of of Chavez v. and the Garmon among Chavez Retail Union. Prominent Clerks’ disapproved rulings which are and overruled and Garmon holding employer that it unlawful for an to make is is represents “organizer” none contract employes whereby agrees employer he the affected pain compel join workmen, discharge, will his organizer’s employer to “consent” that the union and shall employes’ pay from cheeks for remittance deduct “dues” “organizer”—their “rep unchosen and unwanted to their majority’s ruling also that if the means resentative.” voluntarily agree sign employer contract, does not may “organizer,” place the latter when demanded employer’s plant damage destroy pickets around picketing” “blackmail Thus restored the business. California. majority disapprove new Not do the overrule the Code, cases; they also that Labor section hold either cited say its words or that it is not mean what unenforeible does statutory implementation. The further essential for want of “ Legislature are: 923 as enacted of section words [T]he Negotiation is declared as public policy of this State follows: of labor result from volun- should of terms and conditions employees. tary agreement between ... Garmon, resulting overruling today in re-creation of a “no- 1The California, peculiarly lamentable because under seems

man’s land” Reporting Labor-Management and Disclosure Act of is ex the pressly provided competent juris shall be to exercise the state courts formerly existed when the National land” which “no-man’s diction jurisdiction dispute, to exercise over Board refused Labor Relations (Garmon Garmon, commerce. which affected interstate in such as that 598.) (1958), supra, Bldg. Diego Cal.2d Council Trades San provides 14(e)(2) Act now of the National Labor Relations Section “Nothing amended] Act Labor Relations Act as in this [National any prevent courts of State . . . from or bar . . . the shall be deemed to assuming jurisdiction disputes asserting over which the over labor ’ ’ jurisdiction. assert Board declines ... to dealing employers, with . . . unorganized the individual helpless liberty worker is to exercise actual of contract and protect to his thereby freedom of labor, and to obtain ac- ceptable employment. terms and conditions Therefore necessary is that the individual workman have full freedom association, self-organization, designation repre- choosing, negotiate sentatives his own the terms and of conditions of employment, his and that he shall be free from restraint, interference, employers labor, or coercion designation representatives or their in agents, such or self-organization in or in other activities for concerted purpose bargaining pro- collective or other aid mutual or (Italics added.) policy they tection.” Those words and enough enunciate seem clear to me to be understandable and enforeible. majority say, But the new “It Legislature for the [still] voluntary bargaining

to determine whether should now be displaced by compelling employer rule representative majority employees.” of a (P. his “Voluntary ante.) [9], bargaining,” majority the new further hold, may be participated by not even in solely an employer by workmen but between picketing coerced picketing “organizer” or threats of represents employes none of the affected but who wants to add them dues-paying constituency—his to his but non-franchised stock in trade. majority The new employes hold California the permitted participate need not be in selecting “their bargaining representatives; own” employes, if the “organizer” employer agree, accept so must the un- (or organizer union, his if in represents wanted fact he any organization) “representative” existing as their or be dis- employment. charged from This action the employer, the notwithstanding provisions majority hold, of Labor Code, and 11172 and related sections, sections 923 does not con- employer. “interference” stitute Such hold 923 cannot be prob- that section enforced because “A host of provides, Law], “As used herein [Jurisdictional 2Section Strike ’ ‘ any organization organization agency any employee means or or labor representation participate, committee or local unit thereof which purpose, part, dealing and exists for the whole inor concerning grievances, employers disputes, wages, labor hours of work, employment or conditions of is not found part, with, have been financed in whole or interfered domi employer nated or controlled association within attempted em- compulsory bargaining lems attend ployes [if “organizer”] by self-appointed not if a but conducted of insur- host only Legislature the can resolve. [The appropriate problems What constitutes mountable are:] majority’s choice to the bargaining unit? . How is . . the relevant employees constitute . . . Which determined? majority (P. Therefore, held, it is ante.) 472, . . .?” association, workman,” “full freedom of whose “individual his designation representatives of and negotiate of self-organization, his of choosing, own to the terms and conditions 923, unequivocally expressed in employment” so section is his in the of not even to vote selection is truth entitled explained in my bargaining representative. opinion, as p. of California infra, seq., more 494 et the courts detail problems and capable dealing with these and related are gratui- problems of such is refusal to undertake solution judicial impotence. tous and unwarranted assertion demanding organizer’s union It to be that the observed already existing actually represents an (assuming that he may properly organization) which, holding, it to his to force force the both genuine, reputable unwilling employes to not be join, need any It not organization in of the word. sense need give compelled accept it their employes are representative employment any voice the terms negotiates it agent for them or choice as what officer speak negotiations. shall for them the union “right” employe All from the union is the need receive carry “privilege” a union in return card together “duty” paying rights dues, with such as the managed past courts in the somehow guidance protect statutory right (e.g., without not to be arbitrarily membership from union where excluded monopoly supply of the (James Marinship Corp. of labor has attained means shop agreements closed 900]) P.2d Cal.2d 730-731 A.L.R. [4] [155 disciplined expelled right from union not to be opportunity to confront and cross- notice, hearing, without to examine and refute the examine his accusers evidence brought year proceeding under one of the commencement respect chapter. plaintiff shall have affirmative of issue The organization’ establishing ‘labor as defined to herein. existence ...” against (Cason him v. Glass Bottle Blowers Assn. (1951), 37 Cal.2d 143-144 [12, 14, 21 A.L.R.2d 15] 1387]). present majority’s concept of what constitutes “free self-organization dom” of “voluntary” bargaining, seems me, is definitely opposed to the statutes widely expressed California but also to thinking recent labor-management-individual-workman field relations, as example, by for evidenced, Labor-Management federal Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. That provides, act among other things, Rights[3] a “Bill of of Members of Labor Organizations,” following with the requirements: 101(a) (1) “Every Section organization : member of a labor shall equal rights privileges organiza- within such tion to candidates, nominate to vote in elections or refenden- dums of organization, the labor membership to attend meet- participate ings, and to in voting upon the deliberations and subject meetings, business to reasonable rules and regulations organization’s in such bylaws.” constitution and 101(a)(2) Section : “Every member of organi- labor right zation shall have the to meet and freely assemble members; other to express any . express views . and to at meetings organization of the labor views, upon his candi- in dates organization election the labor upon any properly subject business before the organi- to meeting, zation’s established and reasonable rules ...” a given voice, either are direct vote Members or vote as representatives, levy to of their increase dues or “ [e]xcept in the case of a assessments, federation of national organizations” (§ 101(a) (3)) labor ; or international their right relief to sue in courts seek before administrative (§ 101(a) provided agencies protected (4)); is and it is disciplined except nonpayment be for cannot of dues provides his pp. Bill of that upheld (until disapproved that “As as are defined dom to organization, (enumerated The most fundamental 3In 191-192 group, section Chavez v. Bights in associate, for the workman nearly which undertakes [20-26].) to Sargent Lab. through as the 1959 federal California, to labor Code, organize, collectively. those whatever of the same elements of may § today) it is that to insure to each individual be to select representatives supra, said to have and related act were in democracy in Chavez v. 52 Cal.2d particular enunciated representatives sections) there California’s a and the governmentally protection it is may Sargent. section 923. It that section which as be in to strength ^[27] recognized workman free Bill negotiate to workmen his union. it is (See id., declared Bights of his noted for is ’ ’ being specific given without served with written charges, prepare defense, time reasonable to a full and afforded hearing (§ 101(a) fair (5)). Specifically statutory I no protecting note that for scheme foregoing rights spelled out; is the union member is simply given right “bring a to action in a civil district (including injunc- court of the for United States such relief tions) may appropriate” be (§102). As in- hereinabove dicated, law, today, under California until workman in equivalent intrastate commerce remedy had state courts an substantially rights. similar I point would also mention adding at this that, difficulty of employe subject the California who is not holding federal labor is acts the further majority (hereinafter fully discussed) more that “when an inside picket union is formed behind scrutiny close lines its genesis (P. required.” 461, ante.) invading Thus the corrupt may union, be, however is, under the apparently subject opinion, scrutiny, no but when it throws picket shop line employes around which the have chosen keep unorganized, any formed those employes suspect in self-defense is likely, under the ma jority view, company-interfered-with to be held group as a matter of law. As explicitly hereinafter the ma shown, today jority exemplify principle and, by the extreme expedient resolving of conflicts in contrary the evidence to bj the resolution thereof judge, directly the trial a reach contrary judgment. important One the most of of elements the state’s labor policy expressed Code, which is in Labor section 923—and today provision which is held unenforcible—is the for com- plete self-organization of freedom workmen in and selection choosing. representatives of of their own That element is important give right to self-govern- workmen the of organization ment in guard against their own but also experience taught likely the rash acts which has us are power from of come the concentration in unbridled one man group. small principle dominated The most basic of the plan destroyed right is the of California when direct control given self-appointed taken from the workmen is and or- ganizer. representative The latter thus is enthroned not as a of but as the workmen their boss. recognized

As in Sargent p. Chavez v. (1959), supra, of 52 Cal.2d, altogether it is clear that there are individual

labor leaders and some followers who regula are averse to by tion law or to the settlement disputes of labor through judicial process. preference Illustrative by some labor leaders for disputes settlement other than means relatively peaceful judicial and restrained process, and they the tactics to which will resort when, for whatever they reason, eschew the law, People are the facts in v. Osslo (1958), 50 Cal.2d 397].4 judgments affirms of conviction of Osslo decision conspiracy 4The aggravated arising out assault, assault and of of a in dispute commit Diego Clerks’ which handled union, between the retail sales San of frozen sought jurisdiction Butchers’ union, and the of such sales. dinners, ’ (an Osslo official of the were Butchers local, The defendants unions and California, butchers’ affiliated International agents union), two business the Butchers’ local, Butchers’ and five (Hazel, and Dimitratos, Cacio, and Teamster, Tucker, men Dempster, Pacific) Union of the Sailors imported members of the Osslo from through the Sailors Union and to act in employed San Francisco con (P. Cal.2d.) 89 of 50 “Representatives with the dispute. nection of the conflicting met discuss their [to and the Clerks . . . claims] Butchers of the Clerks’ local ‘made demand Mr. Osslo secretary-treasurer upon juris in dispute . . . placed to have the merchandise back under ... legal or our would every of the take means Clerks, diction jurisdiction.’ (Italics added.) to enforce the necessary Osslo ‘pounded boss three stated ho was of the West Coast and times, the table he would jurisdiction. fight . . . before [Four days assault] Clerks National Labor Relations Board a ‘for the petition filed purpose ” jurisdiction belonged having the Board determine who to.’ Busi ‘ ‘ agents calling with the Butchers, imported sailors, started ness (Pp. Cal.2d.) 83-84 of 50 on the markets.” During their visits to a as described market, eye one of witness (p. Cal.2d), in of 50 opinion recounted “These five defend- and Montgomery Clerks sailors] surrounded and Maurer and [the ants some Montgomery’s stomped defendants and Maurer’s feet. get Montgomery, Hazel attempted] ‘Dimitratos and but he . . . got right [though they back out . . . Maurer away stepped pursued] get railing . . . the customers because of a and a past couldn’t bunch of being got . . until pursued . . . and he was . two men hold of pushcarts him struck in him held . . .’ Cacio Maurer the stomach. Dempster judo his Tucker Maurer’s arms to sides. ‘Dimitratos pinned chopped ’ ‘ bombing twenty and Hazel was in shots, him fifteen terribly, ’ ‘ judo Maurer was his fists and with beaten and kicked. chops. [W]hen go lying him in to the floor he was kind hulk dropped let of a Cacio used . on his side. That when the boots on him. . . Kicked him back twice and then he over on his back and was flopped he kicked, ’ ’ ’ right side hard. think, terribly I Illustrating in which a union its situations officers set motion encouraged controlling or evidenced picket plan, irresponsibility disregard duty of their to control their members’ resort to violence and sought legal in intimidation violation of court and then order, to evade Long acts of the rank and are Steiner v. Beach file, the responsibility (1942), 128 19 Cal.2d 685-686 Local No. P.2d [6, 7] [123 20] [union picketing were and directed which included officers disorder and present

483 they make clear that present of this court rights powerless protect the the courts are consider that freely and their chosen of the workmen individual contemplated by representative (as Code, Labor section “necessary statutes) in the absence of adminis- and related machinery statutory guides” (p. ante) trative disputes engaged not that who is disputes or labor commerce, interstate affect such the Labor commerce but as to which National Relations Board jurisdiction,5 must be resolved “the free declines [and (p. 473, ante) interaction economic forces” destructive] subject have been at dispute, such as those which work judicial process. agree I without the aid cannot that impotent incompetent are so that courts cannot proper give statutorily not in a force ease should public policy important declared this state this field. My regard in this are stated in infra, views more detail p. seq. 492 et nationally appears It to me thinking the trend of generally is toward firmer enforcement develop- and further governing group laws ment of intra-labor and labor-manage- ment rather than excesses toward relaxation and back-pedal- regard ling. I call attention to United Steelworkers (1959), United States U.S. 39 1, 4 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d preliminary injunction, personally violence in violation of a par ticipated shadowing employes picketed employer] ; and customers of the Superior Cal.App.2d 512, Oil Intl. Union v. Workers Court 554-555, [18], 71] [officers of the local union did members, picketing not inform threats, threw stones and made temporary restraining the terms of a order which the officers felt was ‘‘just part Company another move on to break the strike and president members”; international, weaken morale of the of the “ speech members, encourage in a just asked not them violence picket long your so lines remain inviolate”]. 5We must area in which conduct connected awith dispute formerly though labor was irremediable even it was tortious practice law (see under state and an unfair labor under federal law Sargent (1959), supra, 162, 208-211) Chaves v. prob Cal.2d will ably be much reduced under 1959 amendment of section 14 ” provide (e)(1) National Labor Relations Act to The [National Board, discretion, may Labor Relations] in its . . . decline to assert jurisdiction any dispute where, over opinion Board, labor . . . in dispute sufficiently effect of commerce substantial jurisdiction (2) Nothing to warrant the exercise of its ... in this Act prevent agency shall . . which the Board to assert be deemed to or bar or the courts of State assuming asserting jurisdiction disputes . from over labor over declines, pursuant paragraph (1) subsection, of this jurisdiction.” 484

12, Supreme per 169], Court, in the United States upholds injunction curiam, an obtained the United States Attorney Manage- of the under section 208 Labor General (29 178). ment Act of Eelations 1947 as amended U.S.C.A. § provides court, That petition that a on of section district Attorney juris- at direction, the President’s General has enjoin diction a strike or lock-out “and to make such may if appropriate,’’ other orders as be the court finds industry such strike or lock-out an affects entire or a sub- part engaged foreign stantial in thereof interstate or com- production goods merce or of for commerce if will, imperil permitted, safety. the national health and affirming order of of the court appeals, which against affirmed the district court’s order the contentions petitioner of union, supreme says (p. court 80 4 of S.Ct.) petitioner suggests reopening : “The that a selective of of specific some the steel mills would to fulfill suffice de- fense requirement There in needs. . . . no room the for this is statute petitioner impose upon which the seeks . Government. . . “. . . Petitioner contends that statute is constitution-

ally up any invalid because it does not set of standard lawful or part manage- unlawful conduct on the of labor or ment. But the statute does certain rights in public unimpeded production to have for a time in industries vital safety. to the health or national It makes the United guardian rights litigation. of States the these in [Citations.] judicial availability relief, of The the common form of depends findings injunction, judicially of fact, to be ’’6 made. very by Congress fact enactment signing Labor-Management of the Reporting President and Dis (1959 (1956) Pocket U.S.C.A.), closure Act 1959 Part 29 providing Rights of Members “Bill Organiza- Labor vigorous language Brandéis, 6It is noted that also to be of Justice dissenting Duplex Printing Deering (1921), Press Co. v. 254 U.S. 196]—declaring 488 65 L.Ed. 16 A.L.R. [41 S.Ct. Legislature, processes disputes, "may connection industrial substitute justice primitive for the more method of trial combat”— appears concurring opinion now in the of Justices Frankfurter and Harlan (p. justices S.Ct.), concurring pertinently those add that through Management sections 206 of the Labor Eelations Act of 1947 designed machinery provide safeguarding as amended comprehensive for "were community, promote and to interest the national policy bargaining. They effect, give must he construed to collective full protections (Italics added.) seck to afford.” tions,” Rights much like Bill of for California’s workmen recognized Sargent Chavez v. supra, 52 Cal.2d strong [27], rising evidence that there is need government under law in labor disputes, rather than (decreed by for abdication of court today) in favor of “the free (p. 469, interaction economic forces’’ applied ante) larger as those in this case—and on a scale recently in the abated and thereafter steel strike. settled urged Congress Lest that the above related actions of popular support beyond and the President in 1959 have no Congress proper the halls of and the White House, it seems quote from an address Mr. Adlai E. Stevenson to the City Institute of Life Insurance in New York on December reported 8, 1959, Report (Dec. the & U. S. News World XLVII, p. 104): 21, 1959; vol. “The steel No. strike dramatizes the fact that are now at we the end of an era. Everybody agreed happen that this again; cannot that the public paramount interest, interest is the that irrespon- private power danger beleaguered sible is an intolerable to our society. . . . private groups—like big “Where big business or labor— performing public are functions, they public must be held to

responsibility. may certainty And one forecast with some Supreme that the increasingly Court will hold them to this responsibility. . . . September proved “In necessary, it for the first time in our history, for Government to establish controls over the internal affairs of labor the unions—their constitutions, their the elections, administration their offices—becauseof the irresponsibility comparatively of a few labor leaders. This failure, just was a unions, democracy. for the but for system today is weaker than it if would have been had done for itself what has now Government had to do for it.’’ regrettable the face of the facts recounted I deem it today steps that California backward. Turning aspects subject case, the narrower it is my opinion not, further that the evidence does as matter of law, employer employes’ establish interference with meaning association within the section 1117 the Labor recognize that, Code. I far so as the evidence now us before discloses, through union, organizer defendant authorized so, August to do between 6, 1957, June 27 and im- without proper pressure freely obtained the authoriza- chosen written tion nine of ten employed by drivers then Petri represent the union bargaining.7 should them collective

During period this between August 6, 1957, 27 and June employer discharge employes threatened to who chose to support union; give did notices of termination of employment to a driver who probably stated “he was going stay to have to with the union” and a driver who him “refused to tell either way,”8 and two other drivers signed prepared by employer letters withdrawing their authorization. Then employes’ freely representatives chosen employer August visited the 7, 1957, sought begin negotiation aof em- contract, ployer negotiate announced its refusal “to union.” (By this, properly trier fact understand, could “any meant what is, any was said: union”; organizer-dominated union whether or employe-controlled, whether international, independ- national local and ent.) The employer then a meeting called drivers and reiterated its refusal “to a union as a bar- gaining agent.” morning August On the eight 8, 1957, (including of the drivers signed one who had a letter with- regard organizer nine 7In this drivers and defendant’s were exer cising rights (pp. to as follows in the Chavez referred case 203-204 1119, fitting jurisdictional Cal.2d) leg “Section : strike [39] of generally policy into the enunciated section islation cautions that ‘Nothing chapter shall be construed to interfere collective subject prohibitions forth, prohibit herein set nor to voluntarily remaining becoming individual member of a labor any organization, personally requesting join or from other individual to (Italics added.) organization.’ Again, noticed, it a must be the carefully Legislature preserves the basic elements of collective policy state, including, 923 are in to the which declared section be the course, specifically right self-organization the mentioned to that right collectively end, but makes it that the the to clear exercise of ‘subject prohibitions is do not herein forth’ to the set and that such limitations voluntarily ‘prohibit any becoming remaining individual personally any organization, requesting member of a labor or from other join’ added) (italics organization, right to individual which the such as that upheld (1946), was re in In ... 91 28 Cal.2d [168 Porterfield 706, 167 675].’’ P.2d A.L.R. against employes’ selecting 8This sort of coercion the the union of bargaining representative contrary statutory choice as was as their policy of this state was the sort in as converse of coercion condemned Superior (1959), supra, 222, Retail Clerks’ Union v. Court 52 Cal.2d Diego 224, Bldg. (1958), supra, and Garmon v. San Trades Council 49 595, designed 606-609, i.e., union Cal.2d compel coercion to force an to accept employes representation employes his to which the freely chosen.

487 met in the union drawing union) his authorization to the unanimously picket- offices to strike. The strike and voted ing began. then my (which point At of the is that of view evidence majority. court)

the from Here it trial differs that of the originated in a trial should also be mentioned that this case testify; court; such court hear witnesses did see and vantage fully point and that from its which found facts support duty reviewing its orders. It is of a court to the approach respect willingness task imbued with its support indulge presumptions in law; all favor of regularity proceedings of the below and to examine the only if evidence to find there be which the trial court weigh may could and find “The sufficient. conflict be opposing pro inferences deducible from uncontradicted (Ballard Greyhound (1946), bative facts.” v. Lines Pacific 28 357, 465].) reviewing 359 Cal.2d P.2d “In [3] [170 evidence all ... conflicts must be resolved favor of the legitimate and all respondent, and reasonable in inferences dulged uphold possible. if verdict It is an elemen tary .principle . law, . that when a verdict attacked is being power unsupported, appellate begins court and ends with a determination as whether there is it will made will 41-42 reiterated 44 no Pacific tions judgment substantial evidence, appellate 107, 111 [2, also Powell v. Cal.2d considering applicable more longer ago Cal.2d Cal.2d reviewing support interfere with Co. inferences a trial court in those of the trial court.” court will not disturb P.2d (1935), predicated. 3] [279 reviewing than jury’s court is without Pacific holding Murray [2] [143 conclusion reached 448] can 1956, Bailey County [6, 7, [3, 3 verdict.” Electric contradicted or ; P.2d express findings Cal.2d Callahan v. P.2d support ^[4] reasonably 8] [284 5] [293 findings 963].) conflict- When the evidence is 689].) Ry. 427, power (Estate of an v. Co. 429 P.2d “The rule Gray implied of a Superior deduced Furthermore, (Crawford uncontradicted, order, any (1950), upon substitute judge 1], 449], unanimously Bristol (1955), jury. findings P.2d from which a final Court (1955), 35 Cal.2d quoted as it is when Los v. Southern When two more than “[3] its 44 this court 183] Angeles, of fact deduc Cal.2d facts, is as ; ‘An see 40, every presumed fact

ing, it be that the court found will justify. necessary support that the would its order evidence implied findings whether the evidence ^[5] So far as it has are conclusive. This passed is oral or documentary. weight rule is equally ’ ” evidence, applicable its today contrast, majority approach In the issue of fact “If with, as the Association was ‘interfered domi- follows: organiza- ‘labor plaintiff, it not a nated or controlled’ ’ meaning there has tion within the of section 1117 been jurisdictional meaning no strike within the section 1118. ap- is crucial to defendant’s determination this issue injunction peal granting preliminary against the order from deciding that must first in- defendant's strike. issue we terpret with, the terms or controlled’ ‘interfered dominated light interpretation in the then our determine whether plaintiff proving sustained its the Association burden that organization.” (P. is a 459 [3], ante.) approach

If we consideration of the related above evidence open previously with fair and minds and obedient to the rules quoted ap- this court and at above, established once pears employer that the above described “coercion” of the designed not represented to induce the drivers to be de- any union, not fendant or need understood “interfer- subsequently organized ence” Independent with the Associa- Employees. tion of Petri There is no evidence employer compact any “organizer” entered into a agreeing require join organizer’s employes asso- group ciation or other or suffer employ- from dismissal anyone ment. There is no evidence ivhatsoever that had spoken independent a company August 8, union before picketing began. when strike It was after the way (hired strike was under super- Charles Bard as a August 8) (the visor on Dan Burns driver one who had represent authorized defendant union to him and who join Independent Association) spoke thereafter refused representatives concerning the forma- tion of an inside union. Matthews, employe organized Roland the Petri

Independent Association, testified or four three weeks began after the strike forming he became interested an association employe (see because he heard from a Bowen p. opinion, 4) footnote that the formation of an independent plant association at that had resulted dispute there; settlement of a labor other Matthews and employes Petri felt a that “the situation was deadlock” and get plant get he wished “to down settled over tension”; therefore, inquired employer’s of Matthews manager go along whether Petri an “Mr. would inde- pendent organization negotiate working association or agreement” and Petri that stated he would do so but “he nothing could have to with which it, do I [Petri] [Matthews] knew he couldn’t.” Thereafter Matthews took no further concerning action the formation of the until De- Association cember, 1957. Although genesis the evidence as to the of the Association support finding would that the “interfered” with it, appear the sense of encouraging it, it does not to me finding such a compelled is as matter of law contrary finding unsupported. of the trial court is The trial could—and, court if we follow the law we have often types cases, presume declared believe that other of we must did— testimony of Bard and Matthews as to state- representatives ments of Petri management and other of they that independent organization nothing could have to do with the formation of an management the intent indicated of presumptively not interfere. It could and did believe that representatives statements of management, made after the picketing begun, approved strike and had that Petri of and independent organization would an not were made encouraging with) (“interfering” formation its and did “dominating” “controlling” not effect purpose letting but were employes, employes made for the despite long history expressed know that Petri’s antagonism unions—any toward unions and all unions—he coming point was now oppose to the where he would not independent formation of an union or labor employes or insist that attempted organize who employment must choose between with Petri and such or- ganizational activity. protects The First Amendment employer’s right expression to noneoercive problems. (National of its views on policies Labor Relations Board (& Virginia Electric Power (1941), 469, Co. 314 U.S. 477 ; 86 S.Ct. L.Ed. National Labor Relations 348] (1940, v. Ford Motor 6), Board Co. 114 C.C.A. F.2d [12-19], 913-915 cert. den. 312 689 U.S. S.Ct. 1126].) L.Ed. December, began organizational Matthews active again sought efforts. He and received the assurance Petri against employes there would be no discrimination participated in an “independent union.” The direct any representative management evidence that gave during up Matthews aid his activities which led organizational meeting January testimony 8, 1958, is the supervisory of Bard, employe, request that at he Matthews’ might recommended names of two drivers who assist the formation of the Association. testimony January representatives The that on man- agement if “instructed the drivers . . . that the work was day”

finished could be in 4:00 that order to attend testimony domination. that meeting Cal.App.2d 186, (See Culinary representatives does compel Alliance management ^[5] etc. [286 inference Union v. walked about 844].) company Beasley meeting place nearby pool and the a watched and “cheeked” hall “in that violence,” case there was trouble, does necessarily improper not employer’s support the indicate Association; of the formation of the it could also indicate employer anticipate that the did and wished to forestall possible “trouble” or “violence.” That “trouble” or “vio- might lence” an come from defendants not was unreasonable fear. meeting after organizational January The events compel management-inspired

do not inferences of haste and by lack of and participation employes full free in obtaining recognition agreement of the January 9 and negotiated the contract between Association and the em ployer January employes 16. There is that evidence were pickets plant. anxious to removed from It is significant person experienced also organization in Meader, problems not employer,9 connected with the by engaged Matthews, was him consulted with and other employes, organizational in aided the conduct (See meeting. (1953), Voeltz v. Bakers etc. Union 40 Cal.2d the Voeltz ease ^[2] upheld P.2d 553].) preliminary injunction It is to be observed also that under the present Law in Jurisdictional Strike situation similar to the previously photostatie investigative had 9Header done some work attorney plaintiff's respects matter, connected with hut had no contact connection the formation of the Association. jurisdiction one in that the contest for was an in- between union, together ternational with its local affiliates, and independent employes’ association which been had formed picket behind union lines after the affiliates of the international picketed attempt

had for 11 in an months to enforce their acceptance by plaintiff demand for employer by compel join commitment him employes pay his demanding dues to the union. appears It that, thus to me viewed rules which are presumed govern reviewing (and courts which were re- spected by the Appeal District Court of in its unanimous reported decision, (1959, Cal.App.) 340 731, 735-738), fully supports the evidence trial finding court’s January, employed by the drivers then Petri formed a labor which was not “financed whole or in part, with, interfered dominated or controlled the em- ployer” meaning within the of section 1117 of the Labor upon Code. a determination, Such a preliminary injunction, is of course not a determination of the merits of the con- troversy. (People Black’s Food Store 16 Cal.2d 59, 62 P.2d 361].) Nor is the trial court’s denial of the temporary injunction sought by the union a final determina- tion of aspect controversy. of the upon The union’s contention that assertedly undisputed facts trial court presently grant should it affirmative re- by preliminary lief injunction requiring with the union and disestablish the Association is not well taken. The controversy facts fully explored. have not been granting “The mandatory of a injunction pending the trial, rights and before the parties subject in the injunction matter which the is de- signed to affect definitively have been ascertained permitted chancellor, is not except in extreme eases where right clearly thereto is appears established that irreparable injury will flow (Hagen from its refusal.” v. (1897), Beth 330, 118 425].) Cal. 331 P. [50 Upon the it, evidence before the trial court’s denial of preliminary injunction sought demanding union may upon well have been proper based determination showing there was no irreparable injury would pendente result from denial of lite Indeed, relief. appear wise discretion would require denial of such relief 492 (Santa B. Assn. stage proceedings. of the Cruz F. at this Lagunitas ; (1894), 306, 104 308 P.

v. Cal. Grant [37 1034] County (1912), 336 332, Marin W. Co. 163 Cal. W. Co. v. 351].) P. [125 upon so that fully the merits tried be matter should This group of driver finally whether determined be

it can 1958, January, did the Association employes formed who group of driver interference; whether so free of in the signed authorizations majority union employes whose the em- voluntarily; and whether so of 1957 did summer through 923 of Labor 921 ployer in violation of sections to continue the discharged men and refused union Code joined union, whether the employment of drivers August, 1957, the union refusal to employer’s which were refusal to submit demands permissible was unlawful (1958), supra, 595, 49 Chavez Cal.2d under Garmon 162, Retail supra, 52 Clerks’ Union (1959), Cal.2d 222. such facts are ascer- supra, 52 Cal.2d Until (1959), say prepared right, any, what if I am not tained may developed. relief be affirmative my speaking that since However, opinion, generally, it is section 923 policy v. re gent (1959), ^[3] Registered Porterfield [106 “protecting P.2d representative by voluntary majority Pharmacists Union supra, (1946), the Labor Code 403]), workmen who have 52 collective supra, Cal.2d 28 commits the state to bargaining” (Chavez Cal.2d (1940), 179 16 Cal.2d [9], freely designated 119 186 [29] Shafer ^[13] selection ; v. public Sar- ; 385 bargaining” legal “rights which can of collective by appropriate equitable protected at and enforced decree the suit of such pp. 193, Williams v. Cal.2d Cal.App.2d 399, 586, 590 205-206 [1], International [46, ^[2] representative [2] [204 47] 409-410 ; Silva P.2d etc. [2, 609] v. Mercier 903]). (Chavez lb] Boilermakers ; Elsis v. Evans (1949), Sargent, supra, P.2d 514]; (1958), Cal.2d see recognition say and enforcement of such right require improperly would trial court “to sit as a appropriateness labor board and thus determine the of bar- certify gaining units, elections, majority repre- conduct sentative, bargaining,” spe- and direct collective all without statutory guidance. required daily cific But courts are questions complicated particular decide fields in which the

493 judge may particular expertise,10 not have the which particular may developed, rules not have been are to expected, example, be for the case of administra- judge tive board or of a period who sits for a substantial specialized department. of time in a (or Such difficulties may judges difficulties that result because different trial may of sharply differing the same court of the views applicable law which is field; see The Labor Horwin, Department Relations Angeles Superior the Los Court of (1942), 31 16) announcing are not for Cal.L.Rev. reason as principle rights inevitably law that flowing from a legislative policy declaration general rules cannot be enforced. Nor appear does it that the lack of explana definition or by

tion Legislature the California of such matters as what an appropriate bargaining constitutes unit,11 or who are merely way example: following are mentioned eases Manda 10The exceedingly complicated tory injunctions requiring paratively violation App.2d acts directed in com contempt simple have been affirmed and decrees for terms their Angeles (E.g., People City (1948), upheld. Los v. 83 (1952), Cal. 489]; City Superior Vernon v. Court P.2d 627 [189 City City 243]; Superior Culver v. Court 509 P.2d [241 38 Cal.2d Hyperion sewage plant (1952), 258] [the 38 Cal.2d 535 P.2d [241 urged rights cases].) this has trial cases court courts to water complex problems, pointed injunctive physical solutions of and has devise suggestions equity parties limited is not out that a court of and has broad just (Tulare powers to work out a solution the case. (1935), 489, Lindsay-Stratlimore Dist. 3 Irr. Cal.2d 574 Irr. Dist. v. Margarita (1938), 972]; Vail Rancho Santa 11 Cal.2d P.2d [54] [45 533].) 501, 560 [25] [81 353, (1920), 372 S.Ct. 64 L.Ed. [40 v. Texas 252 U.S. In Oklahoma 540, 1116]; (1923), (1921), 619]; 65 L.Ed. id. id. 256 U.S. 607 S.Ct. [41 687]; (1923), 505 L.Ed. id. U.S. U.S. 340 S.Ct. [43 (1924), 1094]; id. 264 U.S. 565 S.Ct. [44 67 L.Ed. S.Ct. 493, 500, 505, 76, 490, 852]; S.Ct. id. 265 U.S. 68 L.Ed. Supreme Court, through 908], a re the United States 68 L.Ed. only surveyed commissioners, not lands and established bound ceiver and ary lines, dry holes) pro (including oil some but also drilled wells gas. duced oil foregoing, went about their business as the courts In situations such judicial process by application attempting problems of despite expert to solve assumed) they particular (it may were without be the fact disposal, protection sewage knowledge of water fields of gas production. resources, oil and may Congress Labor the National did not tell 11 It be mentioned Rather, bargaining appropriate unit. what constituted an Relations Board “whether, in order to insure to board to decide it told the fullest freedom Relations exercising rights guaranteed Labor [National purpose appropriate Act, ., unit . . amended] unit, unit, plant employer unit, bargaining craft shall be the collective or specific provisions in this thereof,” three and made subdivision empiches eligible to in an vote election to select a representative12 (see quotation from opinion as to this “host of problems,” pp. ante, present 478-479), insoluble difficulties. In this connection may mentioned courts of this many years state dealt for questions labor statutory guidance relations without as to what con organization” stituted a “labor or “union,” bona fide or otherwise; any statutory have never guidance had as to who is a organizer,” “union authorized or unauthorized; in the 1930’s the term bargaining” appeared “collective in a number of (e.g., statutes in addition to Lab. Code, § in Lab. Code, 222, 224, 554) any statutory without §§ infor mation as to the process nature of the or what constitutes a valid collective bargaining agreement. Concerning problem of conducting representation election, may it be said that question where employe representation for bargaining collective purposes is raised by in an action an employer or (or, union in as this ease, by cross-actions of both), a California probably court cannot,

without cooperation some of at least one of the di- parties, rectly compel them auspices to resort of an adminis- body trative constituted for purpose conducting supervising representation elections, for there inis California no body such administrative specifically required to furnish (1) regard; board shall not include i.e., professional employes majority unless a in a unit with of the nonprofessionals professionals vote (2) ground a craft unit decide that inclusion; inappropriate for on the majority previously that a different unit has been established unless a against unit in the craft vote proposed the employes separate representa guards (3) in a unit include which includes other tion; company employes. 9(b) (National (1956), 159(b).) 29; Labor Relations TJ.S.C.A. Act, § $ the board has Naturally, developed expertise as to what units most various but effectively situations, work the federal courts, such are able to expertise, pass upon without the correctness of its deter regard. (E.g., in this National Labor minations Relations Board v. (1944), Hearst Publications 322 U.S. Ill, S.Ct. L.Ed. Pittsburgh Glass Co. v. National Labor Board 1170]; Relations 1251].) 313 U.S. S.Ct. 85 L.Ed. 12Congress 9(c)(3) its 1959 amendment of section by the National give guidance Labor Eelations Act did not the board particular statutory regard, changing in this merely but a wider ambit for determination, 1‘ the rule that on strike who are not entitled Employees to reinstatement eligible engaged shall not be to vote,” provide “Employees eligible an economic strike who are not entitled to reinstatement shall be regulations under such vote Labor [National Eelations] Board find shall are consistent with the purposes of this Act provisions election twelve conducted within months after the commencement (29 (1956, Part), 159(e) (3).) the strike.” TJ.S.C.A. and 1959 Pocket § (See services at the of a Chavez direction court. v. such Sargent [56].) Cal.2d But the (1959), supra, 162, 215 enjoin picketing by can a union it determines court where object picketing employer that the of such is to force the although repre- the union not union does majority question employes (and, sent if the the affected subject employes arises, that the of the disaffection picketing participation union is result of their in a company-dominated union). (Lab. 923, 1116-1118.) Code, §§ enjoin the court recognizing Or can from maintaining a company union if determines that a representation picketing employes prefer of his would company reprisal. fear union for but adhere to 1117, 1122.) dispute (Lab. Code, Parties §§1116, injunctive powers recognition of these faced undoubtedly willing cooperate would more court plan working accepting a for a fair (see out or election pp. supra, Sargent, Cal.2d, 215-216 of 52 footnote Chavez necessary, accept if or to 16), reference services Service, a agency Conciliation the State state which itself powers specifically enjoined no no duty has enforcement representation (except elections in to conduct limited situa- applicable private to employers), tions at this time but expertise and in conducting repre- which has facilities for parties agree the sentation elections where thereto and the employes great.13 of affected is not number too by 13The State Conciliation Service was created the director of the Department of Industrial Relations under section 65 of the Labor Code. provides (Stats. 1949, 568, 1058) p. That section now eh. the de “may partment investigate disputes providing any and mediate labor party requests by dispute department fide to such bona intervention the may department proffer parties and the its services to both when work stoppage party requests is threatened neither intervention. In the preventing disputes department of interest labor the shall endeavor to promote union-employer relationships. department may sound arbi arrange trate or for the of boards selection of arbitration on such terms parties dispute may agree upon. of as all the bona fide to such ...” originally (Stats. 1939, 810, p. 2368) pro As enacted ch. section 65 department parties for vided intervention when bona “all fide dispute join request Concerning such in a for intervention.” such vol untary by mediation tribunals it was said Messrs. Mathew O. Tobriner (now Appeal, District, Associate Justice of the District Court of First One) (then Division Bar) and Richard S. Goldsmith both the San of Francisco “Cooling-Off” in and Mediation Statutes in the States 264, 272-273, agencies 20 So.Cal.L.Rev. “These tribunals the are sole maintaining peace rights safeguarding labor, for and are not industrial of complemented by labor relations acts are which articulated present suggesting me, ease it seems to without upon what trier of find fact should evidence may might employes, find that the driver develop, they possible appropriate whether or not constitute the sole bargaining appropriate bargaining unit, do constitute they seriously handicapped, agencies. by regardless this extent are To enforcement ’’ prescribed procedure. or their structure their formal given comprehensive appli present can more form section In its Cal.Atty.Gen. 218) form; (18 Ops. 216, original in 1951 than in its cation expressed attorney general must the view that the conciliation service disputes party requests investigate when a bona fide and mediate party intervention, its services when no re discretion to offer and has is view that quests service itself The conciliation intervention. principle prospered bargaining in California under has “Collective ” (1958 Report adopted in Annual 65] section “voluntarism” [of 7); Service, p. however, the conciliation service has Conciliation State “compulsion developments au and the exercise of also referred thority through government” in in labor laws of other states and “changes may legislation, predicts that ahead further federal 13). self-government” (id., p. shrink area of voluntarism legislative “compulsion” example tho is invocation of An Authority Metropolitan by Angeles Transit Los service conciliation 519). (See (1958) 1959, (Stats. ch. amended Stats. ch. Act Service, Report Cal.Atty.Gen. 25; Ops. State 1958 Annual Conciliation 3.6(e)) (in 16-17.) (§ policy in pp. 7, Lab. v. have the with the declared accord The act upheld sections, Code, 923, in Chavez related as construed § authority] recognizes “Employees Sargent) transit shall [of join, organi- self-organization, form, right or assist labor collectively through representatives zations, ing, their own choos- purpose engage for the of col- in or other mutual aid concerted activities and to other ’’ requires protection. bargaining It lective any “question whether a labor the conciliation service of submission to proposed organization represents whether the (§ 3.6(d)). legislation appropriate” Under this unit is or is not authoritatively elections and certified conciliation service has conducted authority employes. bargaining representatives for the transit bargaining, designation compulsory and authoritative Also collective units, representation elections, conduct of and certification employes provided by by transit district are conciliation service for (§§ 25051, 1036). Stats. ch. the Public Utilities Code Although representation is the conduct of elections not mentioned procedure Code, this 65 of the Labor “common collective bar- section gaining representa- applied Service” ... the Conciliation to solve industry. (1951 Report questions private Annual tion ciliation State Conciliation Service is of State Con- Service, p. 9.) supervision employee “The elections by voluntary agreement parties in of all potential. bargaining relationships, parties collective actual or . . . The agree accept must advance that will and will abide the results ’’ (1958 id., p. 14; id., p. 11.) of the election. The use of the offices representation disputes of the conciliation service to conduct elections “implements policy which written into the State Labor Code 923], namely ‘. . . that the individual workman have full [§ [shall] association, self-organization, designation repre- freedom of and ” choosing (1956 id., p. 20.) Therefore, sentatives of his own judicial . . agreement an enforcement of an between and a union necessary) reference, if (by that determine unit, and could Association, neither is the bar- union, whether majority group representative a of that as to gaining litigation. of this of the institution time a is not dissent, course, intended to constitute This today’s I my comprise majority; criticism brothers respect that highly. It effort show is, however, them by subject unjustified their views on the issues are law possibly in philosophy, and to assist some future undesirable differently Legislature, majority, or the constituted or the by steps people perma- initiative, to take that will lead us nently away ungoverned procedures, from the the uncivilized including all in- actions, assaults, too often brutal and the evitably wasteful which are inherent in the results “free inter- espoused by today’s majority. forces’’ action of economic stated, I grant- For the reasons above would affirm the order injunction ing plaintiff temporary denying defendant’s injunction. temporary for application MeComb, J., Spence, concurred. J., Respondent’s petition a rehearing February for was denied J., Schauer, Spence, 1960. J., MeComb, J., were opinion petition granted. of the should under the of the conciliation service, auspices election for representation Motel v. San Culinary Workers, Bernardino was decreed California 37-38). (In (1956 Court No. 87141 id., pp. County Superior Griffin 697, 698, 191], complaint Lima Cal.App.2d agreement alleged held under an such an election was undertook defendant employers which designated majority it as their if a of the employes the union voted to be employes repre but after representative, bargain. trial court union the refused to The employers sented “ having providing admittedly Union [T]he made its minute order negotiate. should now be election, required the defendants won injunction for will therefore issue as the com prayed A temporary from this minute order was dismissed Defendants’ appeal plaint.” whether question it was not a final order. appealable because injunction (e.g., agreement by mandatory could be enforced specifically bargain) open.) requiring was left defendants although of a also that, supervision representation It be mentioned may legal “is substitute service not a by the conciliation election through obligation State or law,” Federal may party adhere recognizes accuracy the results of elections N.L.R.B. as elections conducted federal board. them the same status accords 14.) (1958 Conciliation Service, p. Annual of State Report

Case Details

Case Name: Petri Cleaners, Inc. v. Automotive Employees, Laundry Drivers & Helpers Local No. 88

Court Name: California Supreme Court

Date Published: Jan 26, 1960

Citation: 349 P.2d 76

Docket Number: L. A. 25143

Court Abbreviation: Cal.