Gold v. Gibbons

PAULSEN, J. pro tem.

*

This is an appeal from a judgment entered after the sustaining of a general demurrer to plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Plaintiff elected not to amend.

Louis Gold as secretary-treasurer of the Hotel Restaurant Employees’ and Bartenders’ International Union, Local Number 483, commenced this action for damages and for an injunction against four named defendants, who will be referred to herein as the respondents, and also named as defendants the Blue Bird Company, Inc., Edward A. Hathaway and Mrs. V. L. Piercy, who will be referred to as the owners. The owners are not parties to this appeal.

Disregarding parts of the complaint that have no direct bearing on the questions raised, it is alleged that the owners, as operators of the Blue Bird Restaurant, entered into an original and supplemental contract whereby they recognized the union as the exclusive bargaining agent of the restaurant employees and thereby agreed to hire only members of the union; that on or about March 8, 1957, defendant Piercy sold

[519]

the restaurant to respondents; ‘ ‘ That at the time of said sale on or about March 8, 1957 the said agreement between said local labor organization and defendant Mes. V. L. Piercy was in full force and effect. That the premises of said Blue Bird Restaurant were posted with notices commonly referred to as ‘union house cards' signifying that the said Blue Bird Restaurant was operating under the terms and provisions of a union contract. That defendants, Margaret M. Gibbons, Mary G. Hamer, Ruhe V. Linn, and Sarah Anderson [respondents] were aware of the agreements designated ‘Exhibits A and B’ specifically including the portion of Section 6 of said ‘Exhibit A’ providing as follows: ‘This agreement shall be binding on any successor or assignee of the parties, and said parties shall make the same a binding condition of any succession, sale or assignment. ’ ”

It is then alleged that respondents “entered into the purchase ... of said restaurant . . . and thereby assumed the obligation of the contract”; that although the union employees had fulfilled all the conditions of their employment, respondents discharged them and employed persons who were not members of the union.

Several causes of action are set forth in the complaint, claiming damages of various kinds, but all are dependent on appellant’s contention that respondents were bound by the terms of the agreement and appellant has confined his attack to that question.